Jharkhand Court August 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amrawati Devi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC320; [2006(1)JCR301a(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal has been filed at the instance of appellant- Insurance Company challenging the judgment and Award dated 29th May, 2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 136 of 1992 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle was not having valid licence.3. In our opinion, the claimant cannot be deprived of compensation on the ground that the vehicle was not being driven by a driver having valid driving licence.4. Accordingly, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to make payment of compensation amount together with interest @ 9% to the claimant. The claimant shall appear in the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 21st August, 2005.5. The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to issue notice to the claimant to appear before the Lok Adalat on 21st August, 2005.6. Needless to say that the appellant-Insurance Company shall have all rights to recover the c...
Diwakar @ Dibakar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manag ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar42; [2005(4)JCR34(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ application being WP (C) No. 1781/2005 filed by the appellant herein, seeking a direction upon the respondents not to demolish any part of the petitioner's property. Recording the fact that several other writ applications filed earlier had been dismissed one after the other and that fact had been withheld from the Writ Court the learned Single Judge came to a finding that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands, and, on the other hand, had not even produced a single chit paper to show even prima facie title or possession over the land in question. The learned Single Judge, therefore, not only dismissed the writ application but also imposed cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the writ petitioner.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has moved the instant appeal on the ground that the land formin...
Gahalaut and Choudhary Steel Private Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Financial Co ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC227; [2005(4)JCR283(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents and accordingly this case is being disposed of at the admission stage.1. In substance, petitioner has challenged the demand raised by the respondents.2. One M/s. M.K. (Steel) Industries took loan from the respondents for it's industry. Ultimately, as the dues of the respondents was not paid, tenders were invited for sale of the said unit. Shri R.K. Choudhary, who is now one of the Directors of the petitioner-Company, was the highest bidder. The bid amount was increased on further negotiation and terms and conditions of sale were resolved Rs. 2.75 lacks was to be paid immediately and Rs. 2.75 lacks was to be paid before the documentation. The balance Rs. 12 lacks was treated as term loan to the petitioner on usual terms and conditions of the respondents and the same was to be repaid in 12 equal half yearly installments starting from June, 1985 and ending in D...
Paras Nath Sahu @ Paras Nath Saw Vs. State of Jharkhand (Through Cbi)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ328; [2005(4)JCR236(Jhr)]
ORDERAmreshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.2. In the present revision application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/12/2003 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge.3. The facts in short are that one Narayan Mahto lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dhanbad alleging therein that the petitioner a clerk in Keshalpur Colliery Area-IV, BCCL, Dhanbad and one Debu Lal Das also a clerk in the said Colliery were demanding illegal gratification for giving no dues certificate/ clearance which was required for payment of the gratuity as he had retired on 1.3.2001. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered by the CBI under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, on fulfilling the required formalities a trap was laid on...
Raku Mandal and 21 ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ293; [2005(4)JCR294(Jhr)]
ORDERAltamas Kabir, C.J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 13th May, 2005 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. III), Godda in Sessions Case, No. 119/1981/ 105/2002, allowing the prosecution's application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding examination of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had performed the post mortem on the person of the deceased.2. Appearing in support of the application, Mr. Jha urged that as would appear from the materials on record, the incident, relating to the sessions trial, is said to have occurred in 1979, and the trial has been pending since then over the last 25 years. Mr. Jha submitted that after lapse of such long period, the prosecution should not be allowed to drag on the trial, when an earlier application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the instance of the informant, had already been rejected on 15...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Maklu Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar78; [2006(2)JCR357(Jhr)]
1. These matters have all been taken up for consideration together, since the question of maintainability of these appeals are common and arises out of the same set of facts.2. These appeals arise in respect of judgments and awards passed under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957. The question of maintainability has been raised by the department on account of the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, whereunder a Second Appeal from a judgment and decree passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order is prohibited.3. Appearing in support of the appeals, Mr. Debi Prasad, Senior Advocate, submitted that the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 were in pari materia with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the question of maintainability of a Second Appeal in respect of an order and/or award under the Act had been held to be maintainable up to the...
Jyotsna Mayee Tiwary and ors. Vs. Coal India Limited Through Its Chair ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1994; [2005(4)JCR286(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition was originally filed by petitioner, namely, Hari Prasad Tiwary, now substituted by this legal heirs namely, (a) Jyotsna Mayee Tiwary (Widow), (b) Narsingha Prasad Tiwary (son) and (c) Ram Dulllal Tiwary (son). In the writ petition prayer was made for a direction on the respondents to give employment to the near relatives in terms with the policy decision of the respondents, as was circulated by 3rd respondent, General Manager (L.R. & S) Santoria, Disergarh, District Burdwan (West Bengal).2. According to the petitioners they are the resident of Paharpur, P.S. Afzalpur district Dumka now Jamtara (Jharkhand) and they are the owner of the land under Jamabandi Nos. 211 and 5 of Mauza Nawadih Beldanga. The case of the petitioners is that 1st respondent in order to exploit the coal in Santhal Pargana decided to reach an agreement with the rightful owner of the land for certain excavation. By their policy decision as circulated vide Memo No. 6, dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›