Jharkhand Court November 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.
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Satyendra Kumar Dubey
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR489(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellants seeking for the quashing of the notification contained in Memo No. 5407 Fin. dated 3.9.2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary.State of Jharkhand whereby the decision has been taken to grant pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- to the Accountants working in the in the Treasury, who were appointed prior to 1979, and other Accountants of the Treasury appointed after 1979 will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/-. have challenged the same before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of various records and also on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, quashed the said notification holding that the classification is not reasonable.2. Having aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this appeal. Mr. P. Modi, learned Counsel for the State, strenuously submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the various aspects of the matter regarding classification of cadre de...
Krishna Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR308(Jhr)]
1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 302, IPC and further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years under Section 201 of the IPC by Judgment dated 7/9th August, 2001 in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2000 by Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-1, Ranchi.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that one Sunil Tirkey of village Baazpur in the evening of 27.10.1999 at about 8. p.m. approached the informant Sukara Oraon of same village to accompany him for the purpose of a walk. According to the Informant both of them went out and visited the house of one Pati Oraon uncle of the deceased and husband of PW 3. According to the informant when they were going out of the house of PW 3, convict Krishna Mahto Invited them to share the drinks. The Informant along with deceased and the appellant Krishna Mahto went in search of drinks and could not find it. As further stated when ...
Shruti Visual Information Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand Renewable Energy Dev ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR161(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. N.I.T. was issued inviting open tender for preparation of documentary on Non-Conventional Energy. Petitioner was one of the tenderers along with others. According to the petitioner, he was asked to prepare a sample documentary, which was prepared incurring cost and deposited with the respondents for their consideration. However, till date the respondents have not taken any decision to accept the tender of the successful tender, including the petitioner. Petitioner accordingly, has come to this Court seeking a direction to finalize the matter in pursuance of the N.I.T. and also to pay the cost of documentary, prepared by it, amounting to Rs. 50,508/- and also to refund the earnest money of Rs. 5,000/-.2. In paragraph No. 16 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, it is stated that the tender, in question, was cancelled and information was displayed on the notice board, besides it was communicated to each one of the tenderers on telephone.3. Learned Co...
Bijay Kumar Tiwary and Lalan Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR683; [2007(1)JCR583(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both the appeals, arising our of same judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.6.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 3/2000, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty and sentenced them to serve RI for ten years under Section 376(g), RI for ten years under Section 395 IPC, RI for one year under Section 3(1)(x) of SC ST Act, 1989 and RI for life under Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act, 1989. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The factual matrix leading to these appeals are that in the night of 8/9 June 99 Tuesday the informant Pratima Devi, PW 2 along with other witnesses and victims were sleeping inside the house situated in village Hasker, P.S. and district Garhwa when at about 11 PM they awoke on beating of doors and abuses hurled u...
Md. Qaiseruzzaman Vs. Mashhood Alam
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR409(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for eviction impleading two defendants, first defendant, as a tenant and the second defendant as sub-tenant, alleging, interalia, that defendant No. 1 inducted as a tenant who in turn, sub-let the said premises to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement denying and disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was stated by defendant No. 1 that plaintiff is not the owner of the building, which is a Wakf Property and he was never inducted as tenant. Defendant No. 2 also filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and also allegation of subletting.3. During pendency of the suit an order under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act was passed directing defendant No. 1 to deposit rent. As the defendant No. 1 did not comply the order, his defence against ejectment was struck of. Thereafter, hearing of the suit was proceeded and the plaintiff examined witnesses. However, petit...
Sugendra Sai, Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR108(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 04/09/2000 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial Nos. 390 of 1997/ 37 of 1997 and, therefore, they were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant Sugendra Sai, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 404/2000 and the appellants Ram Nandan Sai @ Ram Sai and Sheo Nandan Sai @ Sibu Sai, appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 407/2000, were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Though the appellants were further charged for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act but they were acquitted from the said charges.3. ...
Ashok Kumar Tulal Vs. State of Jharkhand (Cbi)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR59(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.1999 passed by Sri P.K. Sinha, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi in RC Case No. 9 of 1992 (R) whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for offences under Section 13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years besides payment of fine of rupees two thousand.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant at the relevant time was employed as an Assistant in Ranchi Branch No. II of the National Insurance Company Limited. Raghunath Singh (PW 6) had submitted his motor insurance claim for compensation in respect of his truck which had suffered accident on 22.3.1990. The appellant was required to process the claim application. The claim remained pending for more that two years and no amount was paid to the complainant despi...
Santosh Kumar Dudani Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR166(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court through the medium of this writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents from raising any construction of market complex at Lal Bazar, Govindpur (Dhanbad), adjacent to the turning point of Govindpur-Balipur road, near Gandhi Chowk, named as Hatia tand in Pachayat area. It is stated by the petitioner that the locality where the shop is constructed is a residential area. The grievance of the petitioner is that with the construction of the market complex, the road has become congested and with the coming up of the markets, some anti-social elements also engaged in unlawful activities and nuisance is being created.2. In the counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that the market complex has been raised on the land, which belongs to the Bazaar Samiti Established under the provisions of Jharkhand Agricultural Produce Market Act. The construction of the Complex has been made by maintaining 14' feet wide road. It is furthe...
Vishwa Mohan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR397(Jhr)]
ORDER1. We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge took pain to go through the records and also came to the conclusion that this Court was not happy with the manner in which the file relating to transfer and posting moved before the authorities. It is also observed that the respondents have produced the flies and the members of the Establishment Committee also explained the manner in which transfer orders were passed. But no specific noting was given in the main file relating to transfer of the petitioner-appellant. However, in view of the fact that neither any reason has been given in the order of transfer of the petitioner-appellant nor any proper reason has been given in the counter-affidavit, this Court, prima facie, found the order of transfer was not valid. So by virtue of an interim order dated 10.10.2006 this Court directed the petitioner-appellant to continue in the same position in Nimdih. Though...
Rajendra Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR160(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner came to be engaged as a Driver on 16th October, 2003. It is alleged that his engagement was extended from 1.4.2004 to 31st December, 2004 by the State Leprosy Eradication Officer, Jharkhand. His service was again extended from 1.1.2005 to 31st December, 2005. According to the petitioner, he has performed his duties regularly during this period. He has relied upon a Logbook i.e. Annexure-7 with the rejoinder to establish that he was working from April 2005 to 31st August 2005. However, in Para 10 of the writ application, he has claimed his arrears of salary from April, 2005 to December, 2005 on the ground that he has performed duties with the Respondent No. 3 from October to December 2005.2. In the counter-affidavit filed, the claim of the petitioner is disputed and it is stated that petitioner was absent from duty since 15th of March 2005 without any prior information or approval of the competent authority and hence, is not entitled to any salary fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »