Jharkhand Court October 2006 Judgments
Dr. S.K. Das Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR176]; [2007(3)JCR509(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. In spite of service of notice on respondent No. 5, she has not chosen to appear.3. Petitioner has challenged the entire proceeding of the Minimum Wages Case No. 1 of 2001, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koderma, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and is vexatious.4. Mr. R.A. Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 5 filed the complaint in question that her husband was employed from 1968 to 15.5.2001, till he died, as compounder with the petitioner but he was paid ten rupees less per day under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore she claimed a sum of Rs. 2,51,440 x 20 i.e., 50, 28, 800/-.5. Petitioner filed an application for hearing on preliminary question of jurisdiction but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded to hear the matter on merits. He filed a revision being Cr. Revision No. 78 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge, Koderma, which was dismissed on the ground that the revision was...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar Now Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR518(Jhr)]
ORDER1. All these appeals, arise out of same judgment of conviction and sentence were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.9.2000 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 329/98, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 341, 376(2)(g) IPC and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced them separately to serve RI for life on both counts. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 341 IPC. The appellants are further sentenced to make payment of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment to undergo RI for one year. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. Factual matrix leading to these appeals is as follows:In the evening of 11th July, 1998 the informant Anita Hessa along with another victim Maki ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR414(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the retiral benefits payable to the late husband of the petitioner, who retired from the post of Principal, D.A.V. High School, Dhanbad on the 31st of January, 2000. It has been stated that the petitioner's late husband was entitled to get gratuity, 50% of the amount deposited towards provident fund and also the final pension. The petitioner was also entitled to get some service dues, such as arrears of salary from December, 1997 to January, 2000 and the Dearness Allowance from July, 1991 to December, 1991 and also the arrears of medical allowances from 1.3.1989 to 28.2.1991. The petitioner's husband, during his life time, made repeated requests and filed representations, but the said dues payable to him were not paid. The petitioner's husband died on 9.1.2004. After his death, the petitioner, being the widow, is entitled to get the said benefits and for that she made several requests an...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR379; [2007(1)JCR271(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Government Company and a subsidiary of Coal India Limited has filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 19/12/1990 (Annexure-1), i.e. the order passed by Respondent No. 4 the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, rejecting the objection under Section 83 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act filed by the petitioner, the order dated 19/03/1994 (Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 3 the Charge Officer, Dhanbad, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 89(1) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and also the order dated 27/03/1999 as contained in Annexure-4, passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Respondent No. 2 herein, disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner, under Section 89(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act read with Rule 74 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Rules.2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to 2.06 acres of land of C.S. Plot No. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar Singh Vs. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporatio ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar91
1. On the basis of the chart given in the minutes of the proceeding dated 20th April, 2006 (Annexure 2), it is contended that even though the appellant quoted Rs. 90, 06, 330.32, less than the ceiling rate, his tender has been rejected and, as such, the order rejecting tender is illegal.2. When this point was urged before the learned Single Judge, the same was considered on the basis of the records and also on the basis of the statements made on behalf of the parties. The learned Single Judge stated that in public auction while dealing with the tenders, the State is entitled to look for the best deal and for that it can even refuse to accept the highest bid, but while rejecting, it must record reasons: The reasons given for rejection, in our view, is valid especially when the minutes proceedings gave two reasons: (i) it is less than 15% from the ceiling rate; and (ii) the Corporation felt that in spite of increase of petrol and diesel price as well as fare of trucks along with other ex...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR176(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The appellant, challenging the order of refusal to the licence and the order of eviction, has filed the writ petition. The same has been dismissed by the learned single Judge; hence this appeal.2. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that he has admittedly licence and originally he was given allotment of the area in question for a period of two years. Thereafter, he filed application for renewal. Pending the renewal application, the order of removal of encroachment was passed and while the order of removal of encroachment was challenged, learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, to hear and pass final order with reference to the renewal. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that in the event of renewal not being considered, the authority ought to have initiated eviction proceeding and without initiating the eviction proceeding, the authority concerned straightway passed the ord...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dukhani Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR299(Jhr)]
1. Perused the office note wherein it has been pointed out that till date statutory amount has not been deposited.2. The instant appeal has been tiled by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanchi awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The memo of appeal was filed on 12.09.2005. More than one year has passed but till date statutory amount has not been deposited.3. We have come across number of such appeals pending for more than a year for removing the defects including deposit of statutory amount as provided under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. In order to minimize the pendency of such appeals and also for speedy and expeditious disposal of appeals, it is necessary to decide the issue as to when and in which manner the statutory amount shall be deposited.4. Before expressing our opinion, we would like to quote Section 173 of the M.V. Act...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR80(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr PC for quashing of the order impugned passed by the C.J.M., Palamau at Dallon-ganj in Complaint Case No. 785/04 on 24.1.2005 whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 419/420/467/468/471/504, IPC and the case record is presently pending in the Court of Shri R.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau.2. The brief fact of the case is that the maternal grand mother of the complainant had given 2.04 decimals of land of village Tirondha appertaining to Khata No. 26, Plot No. 311 to the mother of the complainant by registered deed of gift No. 2777 dated 31.3.1980 and thereafter the mother of the complainant came in peaceful possession over the said land. The land was also mutated in her name and she obtained the rent receipts on payment of the rent of the land. The mother of the complainant died on 27.12.1985 and thereafter the land came into the peaceful ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR169(Jhr)]
1. On the basis of the charges levelled against the appellant, a Constable, disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal. Challenging the same, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which affirmed the same. Again aggrieved by that, the appellant filed revision before the D.G.P., Government of Jharkhand, who, in turn, dismissed the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge, while considering the point raised by the appellant, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities; hence this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant would mainly contend on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported in (Ram Pravesh Pandit and Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)), which has been rendered on the strength of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold M...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Upadhyay and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR671(Jhr)]
Dilip Kumar Sinha, J.1. The appellants herein have preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.7.1998 passed by Shri S.P. Thakur, 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 247/96 whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted under Section 304-B/34, IPC. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Sanjay Upadhyay & Bishnu Nand Upadhyay were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years whereas appellant No. 3 Gayatri Devi was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years.2. The prosecution story is in narrow compass the informant's cousin (sister) Rakhi (since deceased) was married to the appellant No. 1 Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay on 8.7.1995. On 23.1.1996 Sanjay Upadhyay when came to the informant's house for execution of' rukhsodi' to take away his wife Rakhi, he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to start a business of his own and a motorcycle to which the informant and the members of his family expressed their inability to fulfill his ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »