Jharkhand Court January 2006 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.
Anil Kumar Poddar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR264(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioner, on being ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 500/-each to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by the Family Court has chosen to prefer the above revision.2. The opposite party No. 2 filed a petition under Section 125, Cr PC seeking maintenance for herself as well as for her two children Suraj Kumar Poddar and Kajal Kumari (O.P. Nos, 3 and 4) by alleging that the petitioner having married her as per Hindu customs and rites in the year 1993 chased her out of the house after demanding dowry and that he has failed and neglected to pay her as well as her two children. The Family Court accepted the case of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by rejecting the contention of the petitioner that he never ill-treated his wife (O.P. No. 2) and that she has left him on her own volition, without even informing him. The Family Court also rejected his contention that he has no sufficient means to pay maintenance as he is only a labourer, since the Family Court came to the conclusion...
Smt. Putul Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar45; [2006(1)JCR361(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner claiming to be a fair price shop holder and also a retail licensee under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1994 (the Act for short), prays for quashing the order dated 16.6.2005 (Annexure-2), issued by the Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.3. From the said order, it appears that while taking steps for effective working of the Public Distribution System in the State, the department found that so far as the Fair Price Shops are concerned, several illegalities and irregularities were being committed by the concerned Government officers in the matter of grant, renewal, revocation of suspension and cancellation of licenses and therefore, a committee has been constituted to review all such cases. The Committee will also consider the recommendations for new licenses and forward the same to the department for approval.. The Committee will also deal with the recommendations received...
Pawe Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR267(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. This revision is against the order of the Court below refusing to recall two witnesses, namely, Shankar Man to and Bali Mahto, for cross-examination who were earlier examined in chief as PWs 4 and 5 respectively on 1.4.1999.2. According to the prosecution, PW 4 is the person, who had seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner and PW 5 was a witness, who attested the seizure list.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since on 1.4.1999 the counsel appearing for the petitioner was not present in Court the aforesaid two witnesses were not cross examined and the trial Court ought: to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to call those two witnesses for cross-examination and refusal of such prayer of the petitioner has caused prejudice to him.4. I have heard Mr. T.N. Verma learned APP on the above contention and perused the order of the trial Court.5. The order of the trial Court shows that on 1.4.1999, Shankar Mahto and Ball ...
Harsh Vardhan Mathur (H.V. Mathur) Vs. Xavior Labour Relations Institu ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR617]; [2006(2)JCR90(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 29th March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 5 of 1994, whereby and where-under, the petitioner's application, under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (the Act for short), has been rejected on the ground of if being not maintainable.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from imparting education, respondent is undertaking other activities by selling its services, which has got an element of business and thus it is an establishment under the Act. He relied on the judgment reported in : (2005)ILLJ722SC , Management of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Chief Inspecting Officer and Ors., and submitted that the activities undertaken by the respondent other than the educational activities are not incidental to education and, thus, even in the absence of motive of profit the respondent is an establishment under the Act.3...
Ravi Bhushan Dubey and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2507; [2006(2)JCR22(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. A petition was filed by the prosecution under Section 311, Cr PC before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa for the purpose of examining the two witnesses, namely the informant and his wife who allegedly suffered injuries in the case. The trial Magistrate dismissed the petition and aggrieved by the said order the State preferred a revision and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ill, Garhwa allowed the revision holding that the learned Magistrate passed the order in haste. Accordingly, permission was granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge to the prosecution to examine two witnesses and aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision is filed by the accused, Ravi Bhushan Dubey and Pankaj Dubey in the case.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution having failed to produce two witnesses in-spite of several opportunities given to it was not justified in filing a petition under Sectio...
Bibhuti Bhushan Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC120
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. This revision is against the order of the Family Court enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 800 to Rs. 2,000, to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who are the wife and daughter of the petitioner.2. Initially, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 800 (Rs. 500 + 300) to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in Cr. Misc. Case No. 5/98. As the opposite party No. 2 found it difficult to maintain herself and her daughter (O.P. No. 3) with the said sum of Rs. 800 fried a petition under Section 127, Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, inter alia, submitting that the petitioner is a teacher, working in a Government School and earning a sum of Rs. 12,000 and that he also has other source of income. The Family Court, Dumka allowed the petition and directed enhancement of maintenance, as narrated above. The present revision is against the said order.3. The learned Counsel appea...
Narad Shukla Etc. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2519
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The above two revisions are filed by A4 and A3 respectively in G.R. Case No. 23/1981 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj. They were tried along with Ramdhani Pandey and Surendar Pandey, who were arrayed as A1 and A2. In this order, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05 and the petitioner in Cr. Revision 1094/05 will be referred as A4 and A3 respectively and Ramdhani Pandey and Surendar Pandey, will be referred asA1 and A2 for the sake of convenience.2. The petitioners in the above two revisions, A4 and A3, and other two accused were tried for offence punishable under Sections 148, 452, 324 and 323, I.P.C. The trial Court found them guilty of the above charges and sentenced each of them to one year under Section 148 as well as 452, I.P.C., six months under Section 324, I.P.C. and three months under Section 323, I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. The petitioners and other two accused fil...
Rabindra Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC735
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as maintenance per month under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to Sunil Devi, his wife, who is the opposite party No. 2 in this revision.2. Against the aforesaid order of the Family Court, present revision has been filed.3. The petitioner married opposite party No. 2 on 7.5.1990 according to the Hindu religious customs and rites. Opposite party No. 2, Sunita Devi, was living with the petitioner for some time and thereafter the petitioner started demanding dowry. He also refused to feed her and threatened to kill her. In July 1998, she was chased out of the house and, therefore, she took shelter in the house of her parents, Thereafter, she filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court alleging that the petitioner being her husband is duty-bound to maintain her. The Family Court awarded maintenance, as stated above.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by opposit...
Arun Ram (Sub. Inspector Rpf) Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: I(2006)DMC784; [2006(1)JCR271(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioner is the husband and he was ordered under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pay a sum of Rs. 7.000/- per month to his wile, Smt. Reeta Devi, who is the opposite party No. 2 in this revision.2. When the said petition was filed for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1500/-to Rs. 6000/-, the Family Court, while allowing the petition, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 7.000/-, Hence, the revision.3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the very prayer of opposite party No. 2, Smt. Reeta Devi, in the petition filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that she is entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6.000/- per month and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 7.000/-.4. On the above contention, I have heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, who submits that he will have no objection if the sum...
Md. Qasim Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: I(2006)DMC404; [2006(1)JCR270(Jhr)]
N. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioner suffered an ex parte order at the hands of the Family Court. He was directed to pay, by an order dated 31.1.2005, a sum of Rs. 3,000 as maintenance to his wife, opposite party No. 2 in this revision.2. When the petition was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, several notices were sent through Courier and also through post with acknowledgement due. Though, they were received, the petitioner did not appear. Hence, notice was issued by publication in the daily local newspapers of Bangla as well as in vernacular newspapers. The petitioner did not appear even thereafter. The opposite party No. 2 finally filed an affidavit dated 28.6.2004 swearing to the fact that the petitioner in this revision is aware of the proceedings and that he had been seen on a numerous occasions in the Civil Court premises on the dates of proceeding but had deliberately been avoiding to appear before the Family Court. The Family Court, ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »