Jharkhand Court March 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.
Kaushal Kumar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR341(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for a direction on the respondents to consider his case for mutual transfer, in terms with the order, contained in Letter No. 14/279/2002-SR(S) dated 15th September, 2004.2. It is stated that the petitioner has been allocated the State of Bihar and on the other hand, one Sri Shambhu Singh has been allocated the State of Jharkhand. As said Sri Shambhu Singh wanted to remain in Bihar and the petitioner wanted to his allocation in the State of Bihar, in terms of the aforesaid guideline dated 15th September, 2004, applications for mutual transfer were preferred, but no order was passed thereon.3. During pendency of the application, preferred by the petitioner, Sri Shambhu Singh retired. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application for mutual transfer vis--vis Sri Anandi Prasad. The case was taken up on 31st January, 2006 when the following order was passed:Heard in part.Counsel for the Union of India, St...
Binodani Marandi and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jhadkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar68; [2006(2)JCR215(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner. Santhal Pargana at Dumka dated 2.5.1994 and the order of the Charge Officer No. II at Dumka dated 2.6.1992 as well as the recommendation of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka dated 7.9.1987 in Misc. Petition No. 330 of 1987. It is further prayed that it may be declared that the petitioners are the rightful legal heir and successor of Late Lakhan Marandi being ghar-jamai.2. At the time of attestation, the contention of the petitioners was that their name should be recorded exclusively as petitioner No. 2 was married with petitioner No. 1 in the form of ghar-jamai of the recorded tenant, whereas the contention of respondent No. 5 was that the marriage between, the petitioners was not in the form of ghar-jamai and, therefore, names of all the daughters of the recorded tenant should be recorded. In the said proceedings, inspection was done in which witnesses were examined and the parties were h...
Krishnadhan Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR26(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing of the order impugned dated 3.1.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 135/03 by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the order passed by the SDM, Deoghar in Cr. Misc. Case No. 319/03 on 16.9.03 was held illegal and not sustainable under law.2. From perusal of the order impugned dated 3.1.2004 it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner/1st Party Krishnadhan Mishra and the Opposite Party No. 2 Tulsidhan Mishra were the full brothers who jointly succeeded the property of their mother after her death and in the petition filed in the Court below the 1st party Krishnadhan Mishra had clearly stated that both the parties were in joint possession over the land in dispute. The 2nd party/Opposite Party No. 2 and others of the present petition had not shown their causes but they had claimed exclusive possession over the suit property. It was observed t...
Yogendra Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR101(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is a wholesale licensee of Indian make foreign liquor, has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 444, dated 2nd May, 2005 issued by the 5th respondent, whereby and whereunder he has been directed to deposit difference of amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of enhanced licence fee for the year 2005-2006.2. According to the petitioner, fee for renewal of licence amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- having been deposited in terms with the guidelines as was in vogue, the respondents cannot ask for depositing the difference of licence fee on the basis of enhancement made subsequently.3. In this case it is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, was fixed as licence fee for grant of wholesale licence for sale of Indian make foreign liquor. It was enhanced vide Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 issued by the order of the 'Board of Revenue', Jharkhand after suitable modification of Rule 106 of Bihar (Jharkhand) Excise Act, 1915, from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs....
ShivnaraIn Singh Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR433(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Petition at Flag 'L' (LA, No. 534 of 2005) has been filed for condoning the delay of five days in filing the instant appeal.2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the grounds shown therein, the delay of five days in filing the instant appeal is condoned, LA. No. 534 of 2005 is disposed of.L.P.A. No. 679 of 20053. The appellant was posted at Harizen Middle School, Jojobera, Jamshedpur. He was transferred after about 13 years to Middle School, Musabani, Jam-shedpur by an order dated 28th February 1995/4th March, 1996. He was relieved on 19th March, 1996 and another headmaster was posted in his place. Against said order of transfer the appellant preferred a writ petition. CWJC No. 990 of 1996(R), which was disposed of with liberty to appellant to prefer a representation. The representation preferred by appellant was also dismissed against which he preferred another writ petition, CWJC No. 3256 of 1996 (R). In the said case an interim order was passed ...
Subodh Kumar Sharma Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR489(Jhr)]
ORDER1. As both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 6th December 2005 passed in WP (C) No. 5305 of 2005, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant, Subodh Kumar Sharma taken loan from Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') in between 1983 and 1985. The Corporation initially released a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/- (one lakh twenty seven thousand five hundred) followed by a sum of Rs. 44,100/- (forty four thousand one hundred) in favour of Subodh Kumar Sharma. The Government of Bihar from Department of Industry, later on, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 23,100/- (twenty three thousand one hundred) on 6th January, 1986 as subsidy amount. It was deposited in the account of the Corporation but, according to Subodh Kumar Sharma, it was not released in his favour.3. The case of appellant, Subodh Kumar Sharma is that a sum of Rs. 1,91,908/-(one lakh ninety one thousand nine hundred eight) ha...
Prakash Rabidas Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR123(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12/1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1996/8 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Additions Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Prakash Rabidas for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 341 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 1 year for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, R1 for a period of 3 years for the offence under Sections 324 of the IPC, SI for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, and RI for a period, of 10 years for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in short is the informant Turo Rabidas PW 1 gave fardbeyan on 8.10.1995 stating therein he was digging earth at about 4.00 p.m. for laying foundation of his house. At that time the appellant Prakash Rabidas came there and o...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR471(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The respondents-writ petitioners were appointed in the service of the erstwhile State of Bihar in October 2000. After their appointment the State was reorganized and successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand came into existence since 15th November, 2000. Even after the reorganisation, the respondents-writ petitioners continued under the State of Bihar till the notification was issued on 24th July, 2001 allocating them State of Jharkhand where they joined in November, 2001. after they were relieved. While they were in the services of the State of Bihar they were on training. Subsequently they were waiting. So, they could not get their salary. After their joining the State of Jharkhand, they were paid salary, but the salary of the earlier period having been not paid, the writ petition was filed by them claiming for salary of following period.________________________________________________________________Name of the Respondents Salary due for the period______________________________...
Gopal Chandra Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR491(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the departmental proceeding, initiated vide Resolution No. 8047(S) dated 13the November, 2000 on the ground of long pendency resulting in withheldment of his promotion. It was submitted that due to pendency of the proceeding since 2000, the petitioner has not been granted regular promotion as Engineer-in-Chief or Chief Engineer though he has been made Incharge Engineer-in-Chief.2. According to counsel for the State of Jharkhand, the proceeding was initiated by the then State of Bihar just before reorganisation of the State and there is no delay on its part. On the other hand, according to counsel for the successor State of Bihar, no final decision could be taken by State of Bihar in the departmental proceeding, the services of the petitioner having been placed under State of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 6726(S) dated 18th October, 2004.3. It appears that the petitioner is to superannuate from...
Parvati Murmu and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR262(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order impugned dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/3 Case No. 242 of 2003, presently pending in the court of Sri K. Pattadar, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 33, 27 and 29 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioners. 2. The brief fact of the case is that on the offence report of the Forester dated 25.12.2002, the Divisional Forest Officer accorded sanction on 1.10.2003 on the basis of which the case was instituted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.11.2003 and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken. It is alleged that Forester on receipt of the offence No. 702 dated 25.12.2002 visited the protected forest situated at Pagda and found that new huts were created by the women folks which were earlier demolished by the Forester. They...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »