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.
Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR296(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur quite mechanically has taken cognizance of the offence on 5.11.2003 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as against the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal though no sanction was accorded by the competent authority as required by law as contained in Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.3. It has been pointed out with reference to Annexure 2 which is the sanction order of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur, the competent authority under the statute to accord sanction for prosecution that he had given written consent for launching the prosecution only against Rabi B. Pareekh, Diloo B. Pareekh, Sri Atul R. Taurik and Mrs. Anahita A Taunk and not against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of t...
Raghu Sao and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar70
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In the writ application the petitioners seek issuance of writ directing the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh to consider the application to the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and to re-determine compensation on the basis of award given by the Land Acquisition Judge in L.R. Case No. 55/03 and analogous cases. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order-dated 20-6-2005 passed by the Special Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh, whereby prayer of the petitioner has been rejected.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:By virtue of two notifications, large chunk of land of village Kud, P.S. Katakmasandi, district Hazaribagh was acquired for construction of railway line. The Collector passed different award in favour of different persons in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2001-02 and 27/2001-02. Petitioners received the amount of compensation and alleged to have jointly filed application under Section 18 of...
Surendra Prasad Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR124(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Petition at Flag 'L' (I.A. No. 2529 of 2005) has been filed for condoning the delay of 9 days in preferring the instant appeal.2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the grounds shown therein, delay of 9 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.3. LA. No. 2529 of 2005 stands disposed of.L.P.A. No. 639 of 20O54. The appellant, who was in service of the then Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as the Board) was placed under suspension by the successor Bihar State Electricity Board {hereinafter referred to be as the B.S.E.B.) by order No. 6/A LN/Gaya/1509/04-47, dated 4th January 2005 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. He challenged the order of suspension on the ground that the B.S.E.B. had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. The writ petition preferred by the appellant was rejected by the learned Single Judge as the order of suspension having been issued in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and not bei...
Rakesh Kumar @ Sittu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2516; [2006(2)JCR130(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 5.7.2005 passed by the 4th Additional District and Session Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2005, affirming the order dated 11.5.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder they refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who is an accused in connection with a case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the plea that if the petitioner is released on bail he may form his own association of criminal or will become associate of other criminal gangs,3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned by the appellate court could not be a valid ground for refusing the prayer for bail.4. Keeping in view the submission as well as the reasons assigned by the Court below, provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and...
Rabab Fatma Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR443(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the panics. Petitioner's husband late Yaqub Ali Mirza died in harness on 9.2.2003 while he was working on UK, post of Constable in Excise Department in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Dhanbad Petitioner who is poor widow, applied for compassionate appointment. Respondent No. 3 Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Dhanbad directed the petitioner to submit original death certificate and on submission thereof, application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, who is Chairperson of the Committee. The Civil Surgcon-cum-Chief Medical Officer issued certificate regarding age of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, thereafter, was considered by the District Compassionate Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad but he claim was rejected on the ground that she is literate.2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3, Assistant Commissioner, Excise, wherein it is staled that t...
Sisir Kumar Das Vs. Nabi Rasool and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar86
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19-9-2005 passed by learned 1st Munsif, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 29/2002, where by the application filed under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) has been disposed of in favour of the landlord-plaintiff directing the tenant-petitioner to deposit rent @ Rs. 600/- per month.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that while disposing of the application under Section 15 of the said Act, the Court below has made certain observations on the merit of the case and has decided the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. Second grievance of the petitioner is that while fixing the rent learned court below has not considered the municipal assessment register as such the impugned order is vitiated.3. Section 15 of the said Act reads as follows:15. Deposit of Rent by tenants in suits for ej...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Birendra Kumar Pandey and Ram Bilash Singh Meht ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR128(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia and D.P. Singh, JJ.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the common order dated 6.3.2002 allowing the writ petitions-CWJC Nos. 2168 and 2223 of 2001 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Ram Bilash Singh Mehta and others (Petitioners in CWJC No. 2223 of 2001) filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 12085 of 1992 for their regularisation, which was disposed of on 15.2.1996 with a direction to the State Government to consider their case of absorption against the existing vacancies.3. Birendra Kumar Pandey, (Petitioner in CWJC No. 2168 of 2001) also preferred a writ petition being CWJC No. 3495 of 1998 (R) 'or his regularisation which was disposed of on 27.11.1999, directing the respondents to fill up the posts, if any, in accordance with law and the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons be considered on the basis of the guidelines issued by the State Government, within six months.4. In another writ petition-CWJ...
Metro Industries Vs. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR400(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned Counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents and Mr. P. Modi for the State. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by the learned Munsif, Saraikela in T.S. No. 9 of 2003 whereby the learned Munsif has refused to allow the petition for amendment filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. From perusal of the order of the learned court below, it appears that while refusing the amendment learned court below has entered into the effect and merit of the proposed amendment and has given a finding which reads thus : Abhilekh awlokan se aspast hai ki wadi ko yah samajhne ka kya adhar hai ki appeal kharij ho gaya. Aisa kuchh bhi abhilekh par uplabdh nahi hai. And on that basis the learned court below has observed that by allowing the amendment as sought for, there will...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›