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.
Harihar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR54(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the demand notice issued vide memo No. 1514/MVD JSR, dated 17th April, 2003, whereby and whereunder, he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 44,337/~ as outstanding dues against the vehicle bearing registration No. BR 16P-9595 for evading Road Tax/and Additional Motor Vehicle Tax during the period from 5th May, 1994 till 31st March, 2000.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid demand has been made merely on the basis of audit objection without any notice to the petitioner for the year 1999-2000. The authority has neither communicated anything nor raised any objection earlier. He further submitted that the petitioner has paid the total road tax amount as was due.3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we feel that the petitioner should bring the matter before the competent authority. If any objection is raised by the petitioner before the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur withi...
Birendra Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR266(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner as a matter of right can claim issuance of appointment letter by the respondents for the post of Constable particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case.3. It appears that petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable and after necessary test he was declared successful. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand issued direction to all the concerned authorities to take steps for appointment of all those persons who have been selected. In the meantime, FIR was lodged against, the petitioner under Section 302, IPC by his father-in-law alleging inter alia, that the petitioner was married with his laughter four years ago and after marriage he started torturing his wife. She gave birth of a child but. the behaviour of the petitioner was not changed. The informant one day found that dead body of his daughter lying on a Cot and there was mark on...
Bansi Raut and anr. and Vs. Most. Asha Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR148(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioners filed an petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as party defendants in the suit in question, which was rejected by the Court below.2. When the case was taken up on 16th December, 2005, the following order was passed:-Heard in part.Plaintiff-1st respondent is granted time to obtain instructions and state whether the issue relating to right and title over the land in question, is required to be determined in the suit for the purposes of granting relief. If one or other issue relating to right and title over the land, in question, requires to be determined then the plaintiff-1st respondent will state as to why the intervenor. who also claimed right title over the land, in question, be not made a party-defendant in the suit.Place this case for further hearing under the heading TOR ...
Sowam Kisku and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2526
1. The appellants, ten in number, were arrayed as accused before the trial Judge with the allegation that at about 6.30 p.m. on 18-8-1983 they caused the death of Dugu Ram Das Kisku by beating him with Lathi, Bhala, Farsa and Tangi. The learned trial Judge, finding the appellants guilty under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (shortly 1PC), sentenced each of them with the aid of Section 149, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.2. The facts of the case are:At about 6.30 p.m. on 18-8-1983, the deceased Dugu Ram Das Kisku was returning from his village Hatia accompanied by his brother PW. 1 Betka Kisku. When he was reaching the house of Bihar Kisku (appellant No. 7), all the appellant surrounded him and PW. 1 and attacked him with the weapons which they had in their hands. PW. 1 managed to escape but Dugu Ram Das Kisku suffered injury and died at the spot. Thereafter, the information of the incident (Ext.1) was given by PW. 1 to...
Uday Kumar Mehta Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR286(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant, Uday Kumar Mehta, was tried along with two others, Butu Mahato and Turani Devi, who are his parents. The appellant and other two accused were charged for the offence under Section 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Judge, while acquitting Butu Mahato and Turani Devi, found the appellant alone guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, while acquitted him of the other charges. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.2. The facts are the appellant is the husband of Madhuri Devi and married Madhuri Devi in the year 1987. It is the case of the prosecution that along with the appellant, the deceased Madhuri Devi and his parents, Butu Mahato and Turani Devi, were also living and Madhuri Devi, the deceased, after leaving her matrimonial house, filed an application under Section 125 of th...
Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR342(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged Office Order No. 26 dated 5th May, 2005 issued by the 4th respondent, Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Wild Life Warden, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been posted on deputation as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Bhagwan Birsa Jaibik Udyan, Ormanjhi, Ranchi. It has been ordered that the petitioner will draw the salary of the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Wild Life Division, Ranchi, where he was posted prior to 5th May, 2005.2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that he being Assistant Conservator of Forest, a Class-II Officer, and the State of Jharkhand being the competent authority, the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Wild Life Warden, Jharkhand, Ranchi has no jurisdiction to depute him, It is informed that one Sri Poul Soren, Assistant Conservator of Forest, who was deputed in place of the petitioner, has now been transferred and posted in the Ranchi Wild Life ...
Shasti Dhekaro Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1890; [2006(1)JCR272(Jhr)]
1. Heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal itself and we dispose of the same at this stage.The appellant, Shasti Dhekaro, was tried for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Judge, finding the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC, sentenced him to life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for the said offence but acquitted him under Section 307, IPC. The trial Court found him guilty under Section 324, IPC also and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a direction that the sentence will run Concurrently.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this :The appellant is the younger brother of the informant, Cheru Dhekaro who is the husband of the deceased Daya Dhekaro. Ujwal Dhekaro, PW 1, is the son of PW G. They were residing in the same house in two ...
Tufani Bhuiyan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1878; [2006(1)JCR279(Jhr)]
1. Heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal itself and the same is being disposed of at this stage.2. The appellants, four in number, were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (shortly IPC) including the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The learned trial Judge, finding the appellants guilty under Sections 302, 323 and 324 with the aid of Section 149, IPC sentence all of them to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-each. Bandhu Bhuiyan, appellant No. 2 was sentenced to two years RI under Section 324, IPC. He was also directed to suffer two years RI under Sections 147 and 148, IPC. For the offence under Section 304, IPC each of them was directed to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned trial Judge directed that if the amount of fine is collected Rs. 18000/- will be paid to the family of the deceased as compensation and that in default of payment of fine, eac...
inderadeo Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR325(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 24.12.2001 which was communicated to the petitioner on.7.10.2001, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why his promotion to the post of Technical Assistant be not cancelled and further for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duty to the post of Technical Assistant.3. Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as casual labour on 10.6.1976 in Milk Supply-cum-Dairy Firm, Hotwar, Ranchi. In the year 1978 he was taken into the service of Grade-IV employee. It is alleged that in the year 1986 the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant from Grade-IV post. Petitioner also appeared before the Selection Committee and after competing in the interview, he was given promotion...
Nand Lal Tanti Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for modification of order dated 29.6.2005 by which it was held that if the petitioner does not vacate the Government Quarter by 30th September, 2005, he shall be liable to pay the penal rent, as prescribed in the Government Resolution, of the entire period of un-authorized occupation. The petitioner, inter alia, had stated that he had filed a representation dated 3.9.2005 requesting the officials concerned to take vacant possession of the Government quarter in question, but nobody turned up to take possession of the quarter. The petitioner filed another representation dated 28.9.2005 and thereafter, possession of the quarter was taken by the respondents on 17.10.2005. The petitioner has annexed the receipts showing that he had paid the rent at the rate of three times higher of the rent and according to him, rent has been paid till 30.9.2005. It has been submitted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »