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.
Bhupati Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR244(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure-18, i.e. the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Cell, Jamshedpur, on 04/09/1999 whereby his representation was rejected.2. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Gauze Reader under Chhotanagpur Water Ways Circle, Ranchi on 28/05/1970 and he joined on 01/06/1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 70-80/-. The petitioner was matriculate at that time and he had also done diploma course in Draftsmanship in the year 1969. He was retrenched on 01/12/1970. He was again appointed provisionally as Tracer in the pay Scale of Rs. 100-130/- on 25/02/1971, but he was again retrenched on 22/04/1971. Thereafter, he was appointed as Work Charge Gauze Reader in the pay scale of Rs. 105-155/- on 27/04/1971 and he joined on 05/05/1971. It is said that though he was appointed as Gauze Reader work charge in the Scale of Rs. 105-155/- but he was paid the scale of Rs. 85-110/...
Premlal Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR379(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.1999 and corresponding sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, whereby the appellant Premlal Bhagat was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.2. Brief facts of the case, which was registered on the basis of the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix on 27.1.1998, is that the accused had established sexual relation with her for the past 11 years prior to the date of lodging of the FIR, on the assurances of marriage and during this period, she had conceived several times and was made to undergo termination of her pregnancy each time by the accused. It was when the accused refused to marry her and had proceeded to marry elsewhere, she decided to lodge complaint against the accused and had forwarded a letter to the Superintendent of Police and on his direction, she appear...
Sidheshwar Sahu, Vs. the State of Bihar (Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR70(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellants were tried and convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced for violating Sub-section (2)(d) of Section 3 of the Act. While appellants No. 2 and 3 Rajpati Sahu and Radha Krishna Jaiswal were found guilty for abetment and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each, appellant No. 1 Sidheshwar Sahu, was convicted for offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years by the Special judge, Gumla in G.R. No. 35 of 1987.2. Brief facts of the case is that on 2.6.1987, the informant police officer on the basis of a confidential information reached Nagar Siskari at 10.30 a.m. and intercepted a truck bearing Registration No. BRV 4971 and found substantial quantity of wheat and other foodgrains loaded thereon. The driver of the truck along with another person, namely Sidheshwar Sahu (Appellant No. 1) who was travelling in the vehicle, were a...
Rajpati Sahu Vs. the State of Bihar (Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR77(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 20.12.1999 passed by the Special judge, Gumla in G.R. No. 36 of 1987 whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Section 7(i) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of rupees one thousand and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by the marketing officer (PW2) who had alleged while claiming that on receipt of a confidential information that a truck loaded with fifty bags of wheat was intercepted and it was found that the wheat was disposed of by the present appellant who was licence holder in respect of a Government public distribution system (PDS) shop and the bags of wheat which the appellant had lifted from the government godown were meant to be sold in black market. The marketing ...
Shasthi Mahato and anr. and Sukhen Mahato and anr. Vs. State of Bihar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR312(Jhr)]
1. Both the appeals arising out of the same impugned judgment have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the four appellants in both the appeals stand convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for five years under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence to run concurrently.2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that in the night of 13.11.1992 the informant Bhawani Prasad Gope along with deceased Nagen Chandra Gope heard hulla of paddy being stolen at about 9 p.m. on which they ran towards the field of PW 4 Bhagath Ranjan Gope situated near the river. Further stated all of them saw the appellant Shasthi Mahato along with his three sons carrying paddy from the field. It is further alleged that the appellants were armed with Lathi, arrows and Tabla. According to the prosecution they started chasing the appellants and r...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Fagni Bai and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC814; [2007(2)JCR16(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. A young man of 34 years employed in Central Coalfield Limited died in a motor vehicle accident. At the relevant time he was getting gross salary of Rs. 9000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,45,000/-.3. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.4. At the very outset we are of the view that the Insurance Company cannot assail the award only on the ground of quantum of compensation. In this connection reference may be made to a decision in the case of Chinnama George v. N.K. Raju 2000 ACJ 777 (SC), wherein it was held that if none of the conditions as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 exists for the insurer to avoid the liability, the insurer is legally bound to satisfy the award and the insurer cannot be a person aggrieved by the award. In such a case, the insurer will be barred from filing an appeal against the award of the T...
Bal Sakha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR111(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Status report has been filed. On perusal of the status report, it is very unfortunate to see that number of inmates presently staying in the Homes is 78 and 241 in Ranchi and Deoghar respectively even though the accommodation capacity of the Homes is 50 each.2. In our view, the respondents must make immediate arrangement to see that all the persons are accommodated in a proper place. Before that, it is noticed that only seven Boards have been constituted to deal with juvenile cases in seven Boards (in seven districts) and Boards have not been constituted for all the districts of the State.3. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to issue notification as per Section 4 of the Act conferring powers to the existing Boards to be exercised by them for a group of districts all over the State of Jharkhand. The Government may consider this as urgent one and issue notification within two weeks from today to enable the Boards to dispo...
Hafiz Mian @ Hafij Ansari and Harihar Sao and Ambika Alias Amerika Mis ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1986; [2007(2)JCR318(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellants were tried and convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by the VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1991 by order dated 31.8.1999 and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals.2. Facts of the case registered on the basis of the fard beyan of the informant Dost Mohammad (PW6) on 21.8.1989, is that on the previous night of 20.8.1989, the informant returned to his house and found his dog barking. While the informant was asking his brother Rustam the reason why the dog was barking, two persons came from behind and caught hold of him and brought him inside the court yard of the house and tied his legs and hands. The miscreants demanded money from the informant. The informant expressed that he had no money. Thereafter one of the miscreants brought a tin of kerosene oil from the house of the i...
Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR234(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Admittedly, the construction in question was made by 5th respondent without sanction of the Municipality. It is also noticed that as early as on 30.10.2001 final order has been passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the respondent No. 4 to remove the public nuisance over the public road caused by the 5th respondent.2. In pursuance of the said order, it is submitted that the Municipality sent a notice on 29.12.2001 asking the 5th respondent to demolish the illegal construction. Even then, there was no response from the side of the 5th respondent. So, consequently, the petitioner has given representation after representation requesting the Municipality regarding the compliance of the order passed by Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 133, CrPC, which has not been challenged. Despite the receipt of all the representations, the Municipal authority did not take any effort to remove the construction, therefore, the petitioner has been constrained t...
Liyakat Ansari Vs. C.M.D. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR53(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Respondent prays for accepting the counter-affidavit filed on 2.11.2006 beyond the time granted.Heard.Filing of the counter-affidavit is accepted.I.A. No. 2961 of 2006 is disposed of.W.P. (S) No. 7114 of 2005The parties agreed for disposal of this writ petition at this stage as per the order dated 20th July, 2006. Accordingly, they were heard at length.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth from 28.8.1946 to 15.3. 1954.The service excerpts of the employees were circulated to them in the year 1988 requesting them to give the details for filling up the blank columns in the service record. In column 6 of petitioner's letter his date of birth 28.8.1946 was mentioned. Petitioner made a note that his age is 35 years and the said date of birth is wrong.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no document on the basis of which his aforesaid date of birth was recorded in his service records.C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »