Jharkhand Court December 2006 Judgments
Mukty Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR331(Jhr)]
ORDERLA. No. 3527 of 20061. By the Court.-Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the Interlocutory Application for impleading the C.B.I. as party- respondent is allowed. LA. No. 3527 of 2006 stands disposed of.W.P. (PIL) No. 1654 of 2062. The prayer in the instant Public Interest Litigation is for issuance of mandamus for direction to the authorities of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI in short) to enquire into and investigate the case relating to custodial murder of a tribal boy, namely, Manraj Tirkey.3. The petitioner, claiming himself as a General Secretary of Adivasi Mahasabha, a Social and Welfare Organisation, especially for the tribal community, has filed this Public Interest Litigation claiming for the above direction.4. According to the petitioner, Manraj Tirkey, a tribal boy, was arrested by respondent No. 7, Smt. Sandhya Rani Mehta, City Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, Jharkhand, on 22.12.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. along with five other tribal boys and t...
Tag this Judgment!Rambriksha Hazam Vs. State of Jharkhand and Dy. Development Commission ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR665
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, Rambriksha Hazam, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 11.9.2004 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Hazaribagh P.S. Case No 449 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2208 of 2004 registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Coda pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hazaribagh.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Praishad, Hazaribagh presented his written statement before the Officer-in-Charge. Sadar Thana, on 10.9.2004 stating inter alia that the Zila Parishad was selected as Agency by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer for construction work of the buildings of Anganbari Centres and offices cum Godowns for Child Development Project Officers. The construction work of 70 Anganbari Kendra, 3 Office cum Godowns for Chi...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Nand Jha and Nirmal Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR654; [2007(2)JCR230(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 19.6.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Deoghar in PCR Case No. 727 of 2005(T.R. No. 1344 of 2006) whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioners, Sanjay Nand Jha and Nirmal Kumar Mishra with meeting of their minds represented before the Opposite parties No. 2 to 7 that one Shyam Nandan Shashtri, being the Secretary of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya and an authorized person on behalf of the Managing Committee of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, had executed a general power of attorney in their favour to pursue for sale of the land appertaining to plot Nos. 17 and 18 corresponding to town plan plot Nos. 420 and 421 of Mouza Dhawani measuring 4 acres 7 decimals of land forming part of J.S. No. 2/3432 being the Basour l...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Kumar Singh Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Through Its ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1086
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.7.06 passed by the Additional Secretary, J.S.E.B, Ranchi (respondent No. 3) where by the petitioner has been put under suspension or the allegation that he has been found prima face guilty of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the Board and also guilty of gross indiscipline and insubordination which amounts to gross misconduct on his part. The petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondent No. 3 is neither an appointing authority nor is a disciplinary authority and as such the impugned order passed by him is wholly without jurisdiction. Secondly, that the order is tainted with malafide and arbitrariness and is unsustainable. It has been stated that the petitioner has been maliciously put under suspension on the baseless allegations only in order to victimize him and to put him to loss and harassment.2. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Sah and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinay Kumar Sah an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC403; 2007ACJ1378; [2007(1)JCR579(Jhr)]
ORDER1. These two appeals filed by the claimant and by the Insurance Company are directed against the judgment and award dated 26.5.2005 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dhanbad in Title M.V. Suit No. 85 of 1997 whereby a sum of Rs. 22,70,000/- has been awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The claimant Vinay Kuar Sah was in the service of BCCL and was working on the post of Assistant Colliery Manager at Simla Bahal Colliery, Bhalgara Area. On 15.6.1996 while he was coming from his duty to his residence at Singh Nagar Officer's Colony, Jharia by his scooter, he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. AP-9U-5058. The truck was running in very high speed and was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed the claimant, as a result of which he fell down and both of his hands came under the wheel of the truck. It was stated that due to the said accident, both the hands of th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hina Singh Vs. Satya Kumar Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar34; [2007(1)JCR570(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts, Act, 1984, the appellant-wife has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18-3-2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Matrimonial Suit No. 2/2003 whereby he has ordered for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The respondent-Satya Kumar Singh married with the appellant, Smt. Hina Singh on 27-4 2001 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. In 2003 the respondent-husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of restitution of conjugal right alleging, inter alia, that after marriage the appellant lived with him for about three weeks and, thereafter, she went to Kolkata. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant had gone to Kolkata but she did not come back with him. On 26-10-2001 the appellant came to her matrimonial home and started threatening and torturing the entire family members of t...
Tag this Judgment!Saranan Banerjee and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC608
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The husband-petitioner Saranan Banerjee preferred this application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur on 28.6.2002 in Misc. Case No 99 of 1998/70 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500 as monthly maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 wife and their minor daughter.2. The petitioner-husband had earlier moved before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4450/01 for quashing the interim order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby interim maintenance was granted to the wife-opposite party and during the pendency of the quashing petition final order was passed and it was withdrawn by the petitioner on 8.8.2002.3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was married to the O.P. No. 2 on 15.4.1993 at Jamshedpur according to the Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage the opposite party wife came...
Tag this Judgment!Employers in Relation to the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR850; [2007(2)JCR302(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, by a common award dated 16/01/1992 disposed of two reference cases, i.e. Reference Case No. 32/1989 and Reference Case No. 35/1989. The Reference Case No. 32/1989 arose out of the dispute referred by the Central Government Under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, whereby the following dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:Whether the Action of the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s BCCL in denying employment to Shri karma Rout and 21 others with effect from 09/07/1977 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?2. The Reference Case No. 35/1989 arose out of the dispute referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Dhanbad under Section 10(10(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, whereby the following dispute was referred for adjudication:Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Area of...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Bhagirathi Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR109(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 147/05 allowing the amendment sought for by the complainant so as to substitute the quantum of compensation under heads already indicated in the complaint. Challenge is made on two counts (1) the Forum does not have the power to allow amendment and (2) that the amendment amounts to change the nature of the proceedings. With a view to canvass the first question reference is made to Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which, inter alia, reads as under:(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely;-(i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;(ii) the discovery and production of an...
Tag this Judgment!BudIn Hansda @ Budinath Hansda and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR249(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellants were put on trial for the offence under Section 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While appellant No. 1 Budin Hansda was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, remaining accused were convicted for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the trial court.2. Prosecution case relates to the murder of one Dhena Marandi, a resident of village Mol Pahari Bathan situated at about 15 km from the nearest police station namely Pakuria police station in the district of Pakur. The incident had occurred in the evening of 18.4.1995. A dispute over certain land was pending between the informant and his family members an one side and the accused Budin Hansda and Girish Marandi on the other side. A panchayati was to be held to resolve the dispute on 18.4.1995. A pradhan of village namely Johan Murmu (PW9), Amin namely Gulam Rasool Mian (PW 10) a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »