Jharkhand Court October 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.
Nandlal Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR669(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Cr. Misc. No. 1/2006 on 23rd June, 2006 whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte order dated 5.12.2005 allowing the maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month under Section 125, Cr PC to the Opposite Party No. 2 (Sangeeta Sharma) was rejected.2. The facts which emerge from the order passed by the Principal Judge, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 86/2005 delivered on 5th December, 2005 in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are that the Opposite Party No. 2 (Sangeeta Sharma) was married to the petitioner Nandlal Sharma on 9.3.2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner was working and is still working as Assistant Professor in the Computer Science and Engin...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Lakhan Rai
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR583; 2007CriLJ2410
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The Death Reference as well as Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24/06/2005 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2003 whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant Lakhan Rai for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and awarded him the death sentence for the said offence.The charge against the appellant was for committing the murder of his old lather mother, his wife, his three sons, his only daughter, his three nieces (brother's daughters) and also for causing serious injury on the person of his 4th niece (brother's daughter) who died after 21 days of the incident.2. The case was initiated on the basis of the fardbeyan of Bigan Rai the cousin of the appellant (Phuphera brother) wherein he stated that the accused/appellant Lakhan Rai, who used to behave like insane person since last 2-3 years and he had undergone mental treatment twice at Ranchi. On 24/04/2002 at about 5.30 a...
Lakhu Manjhi Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR680(Jhr)]
Dilip Kumar Sinha, J.1. The sole appellant Lakhu Manjhi has preferred this Cr. Appeal against the judgment dated 10.12.1998 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 290/1997 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the statement of the prosecutrix Shakuntala Devi (FIR) Ext. 2 is that on 8.7.1997 while she was proceeding to take bath in a rivulet situated outside the village, she came across the sister of the appellant namely Malti Manjhian and the prosecutrix asked her as to why she was entangled with her husband and there held altercation by exchange of filthy language between the two. After such event the prosecutrix returned to her matrimonial home. On the command of father-in-law the prosecutrix kept mum. Since she had not taken bath in the rivulet she again proceeded at about 12 O'clock and af...
Gurdayal Singh Bhatia @ Gurudayal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR509(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, Gurdayal Singh Bhatia @ Gurdayal Singh has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned cognizance order of the offence as taken against him under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant, Rajesh Emanuel Patro, Nazarat, Deputy Collector, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, raided the hotel premises, popularly known as 'New Chhappan Bhog' of the petitioner on 28.9.2005 wherein it was found that 14.2 Kg. of L.P.G. Cylinder, which was meant for domestic purpose, was being used for commercial purposes, in contravention of the Provision of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. Four L.P.G. Gas Cylinders being weighed 14.2. Kg. each with one regulator and two gas stoves were seized in presence of the witnesses.37 The maincontention of Mr. S.L. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that search and seiz...
Madan Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR627(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. Mr. Ram Awatar Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Madan Mahto was admitted to bail after his detention for more than a month by the order of the Sessions Judge, Giridih in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 287 of 2002 for the alleged offence under Section 413/414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act on 20.1.2003 after hearing the learned APP as well. But his bail was cancelled on the subsequent date i.e. on 21.1.2003 without giving notice to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had sworn false affidavit that no anticipatory or regular bail petition was earlier filed on his behalf either before the Sessions Judge, Giridih or before the High Court nor the same was pending any where else but, as a matter of fact, a bail petition No. 1107 of 2002 was filed on his behalf which was pending for disposal in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in which the learned Court below c...
Narad Pathak Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR470(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Seeking rectification of the date of birth, the Writ Petition is filed by the appellant, who is working as a Constable. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that the requisition for correction of the date of birth was made only 9-10 months prior to the date of his retirement. This is the subject-matter under challenge in the appeal.2. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.3. On the face of it, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of the Department, which has not cared to pass any order on the application/requisition filed by the appellant for rectification of his date of birth on 17.10.2001. According to the appellant, his correct date of birth is 5.1.1948. However, in the service register, his date of birth has been mentioned as 12.6.1947. It is strenuously contended by the counsel for the appellant that on 12.6.1967, he joined the post of constable and at the time of joining, he produced the University Ce...
Sri Mahinder Singh D.O.L.i.C. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Biha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR673; [2008]300ITR90(Jharkhand)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since in both the cases common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main question of law which has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in the instant reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (in short the Act) is 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna was justified in holding that Incentive Bonus earned by the assessee, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short LIC) is salary as defined under Section 17 of the Act keeping in view the terms, conditions, rules and regulations of the service, and is not professional income' ?3. The Assessee, a Development Officer of LIC of India filed his return of income, which was taken under scrutiny after approval by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Thereafter, an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26.6.8...
Sri Ishwar Jha Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Secre ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR413(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent to pay the amount of Gratuity, General Provident Fund with statutory interest and also for fixation of pension and payment of the arrears of pension and other admissible retiral dues. It has been stated that the petitioner retired from the service of respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 31.1.2006 from Electricity Supply Sub-Division, Jamtara as Metre Reader and after his retirement, he has completed all the 'formalities and submitted all the relevant papers, but till date, said retiral dues have not been paid to the petitioner in spite of his repeated requests and representation.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submitted that the petitioner has retired in the month of January 2006 and payments pertaining to his retlral benefit under some heads have already been made and the rest of the dues are under process of payment. It has been submitted tha...
Tek Lal Mari and ors. Vs. Ram Kishun Marik and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR196(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. G.N. Chandra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. In this interlocutory application purported to have been filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC'), the appellants have prayed for stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No. 6 of 2006 pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge-III, Giridih till the disposal of this Second Appeal.3. For better appreciation of law that shall be discussed herein below, it is pertinent to mention here the brief facts of the case. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a partition suit being No. 61 of 1986 for a preliminary decree in respect of the joint family properties. The suit was dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 6.6.1988. The plaintiffs-respondents; being aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred appeal before the District Judge, Giridih being Title Appeal No. 107 of 1988. The a...
Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR669; [2007(1)JCR307(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited seeks a direction upon the respondents to issue a demand notice showing excess payment of advance sales tax and central sales tax paid by the petitioner according to returns for the year 1986-87 so that the petitioner can make an application for refund of the said amount in the prescribed form and further for a direction for refund of the excess amount in view of the fact that the original assessment order dated 30.11.1990 has been set aside by the appellate authority.2. The petitioner-unit is registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and has been filing returns under the said Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 before the Commercial Taxes Authority, Sindri Circle, Jharia. In compliance to the notice issued for assessment for the year 1986-87, the representative of the petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority who passed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »