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.
Dr. (Mrs.) Janki Sinha Vs. Vinoba Bhave University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR110(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to consider her case for promotion under Time Bound Scheme to the post of University Professor with effect from 11th August, 1985, in terms with the Supreme Court's decision, rendered in the case of Patna University etc. v. Awadh Kishore Prasad Yadav and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) BLJR 790 (SC).2. According to the petitioner, her case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. (Miss) Shibani Sinha v. Vinoba Bhave University and Anr. CWJC No. 2242 of 2000(R), disposed of on 20th March, 2001.3. Counsel for the University while did not choose to controvert the facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, submitted that on the basis of application, preferred by Dr. (Miss) Shibani Sinha, her case was placed before the Screening Committee, which after screening recommended her name. However, no decision having been taken by the Commission in her case, direction was ...
The Management of Electrical Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2006
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR975]; [2007(3)JCR260(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 14 of 1994 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with full back wages and all other consequential benefits including regularization of service.2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication:Whether Sri Dilip Kumar Prasad was appointed as Typist Clerk by Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification-cum-Supply Division, Tenughat? If so, whether the termination of service of Sri Prasad from 21.5.91 is proper? If not, what relief he is entitled to?3. The grievance of respondent No. 2 workman was that his termination was void ab initio for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Labour court found that he worked between 1.1.1989 till 21.5.1991 as Typist Clerk and that he was retrenched from service without complying with the provision...
Prahlad Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR297(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed in Sessions Case No. 40/1986/24/1987 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147/148/149/342/379/302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life under Sections 302/34 IPC, RI for 2 years under Section 147 IPC, RI for one year under Section 342 IPC and RI for three years under Section 379 IPC. All the appellants except the appellant No. 7 have further sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 323 IPC, RI for three years under Section 325 IPC. The appellant No. 3 has been further sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 148 IPC and RI for five years under Section 325 IPC. The appellant No. 5 has been further sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.11.1985 at about 12.30 p.m. while the informant Harihar Das PW 7 and his relative J...
Ashok Kumar Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR151(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cognizance order dated 18.7.2003, passed by Smt. Prem Lata Tripathy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 117 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 373, 385 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising out of the order impugned aforesaid.2. Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Anil Kumar on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that petitioner-accused Ashok Kumar Mukhopadhyay and obtained loan to the turn of Rs. 80.000/- from the informant opposite party No. 2, Santosh Ghoshal on 8.2.2001 but on repeated demand, the lent out money was not returned. The petitioner executed a deed in writing about borrowing the said amount with the promise to return the same on 22.11.2002. But after expiry of the said period when the complainant-opposite p...
Nand Gopal Choubey and Ten ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR328(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioners, who are Assistant Conservator of Forest, have preferred this writ petition against the order contained in Notification No. 1321, Ranchi, dated 23rd February, 2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby and where under, they have been posted as attached officers (Assistant Conservator of Forest).2. According to petitioners the impugned order of posting has been issued by the Respondents with mala fide motive to ensure that the petitioners are not given the charge of the higher post of Divisional Forest Officers (hereinafter referred to as the D.F.O.) and to give benefit to others whose names are appearing in another notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005, who have been posted as D.F.Os. and have been given dual charge.3. This Court by its order dated 7th March, 2005, allowed the petitioners to implead the persons named in the notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005 (Annexure 5/1 to the writ petition) and have been transferred...
Prem Nandan Kumar and Chandra Shekhar Kumar Vs. Md. Asghar Hussain
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR61(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Godda in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2003/3 of 2004 whereby the Court below has allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs suit.2. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 24 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Godda praying relief for declaration that the land of Plot No. 412 of Mouza Gangta Khurd measuring an area of 5 kathas is exclusive property of the plaintiff and the defendants have illegally and forcible trespassed over the same. The suit land was fully described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. The further prayer was for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants from the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing the plaintiffs possession.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was settled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Case No. 344/75-76, by order dated 03.12.1975. Del...
Shankar Prasad and anr. Vs. Rabindra Nath Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR488(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. This is the tenants-defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Title Eviction Suit No. 47 of 1987/27 of 1992.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal necessity and breach of terms of tenancy. The plaintiffs claimed themselves as the landlord on the basis of their acquisition of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises as they require the same also for their own use and occupation as for that need they had acquired the suit premises. The plaintiffs had also to dig a well and repair the compound walls. According to the plaintiffs the defendants had stopped payment of rent since March, 1983 and on that ground also rendered themselves liable for...
Gopal Maharana and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3932
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment dated 9-9-1997 passed by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case Nos. 177 of 1989/ 203 of 1990, whereby he convicted all the six appellants for commission of the offence under Section 304, II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years each for the said offence. All the appellants, except appellant No. 6 Hansi Devi, have further been convicted for committing the offence under Section 323 of the IPC but no separate sentence was passed.2. The prosecution case in short is that PW-7 Budhan Maharana gave a fardbeyan on 9-4-1987 alleging therein that on 8-4-1987 at about 6.00 P.M. all the appellants came at the door of the informant complaining that the she goat of the father of the informant had eaten up pumpkin plant of the accused persons and then they started abusing and assaulting the informant's father with Lathi and slaps. The informant's father raised alarm, ...
Rajendra Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR402(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant was granted ' Letter of Authority' by the Registering Authority-cum-joint Transport Commissioner under Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 to run a Testing Station, which was cancelled by the principal Secretary. Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 27th June, 2005. Which was challenged by the appellant, in the writ petition.2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25th August. 2005 while held the order dated 27th June, 2005 passed by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi illegal and quashed the same, also quashed the 'Letter of Authority', as was granted to the appellant by the Registering Authority, being illegal.3. Admittedly, no person challenged the 'Letter of Authority', as was issued in favour of the appellant nor any such prayer was made on behalf of any of the respondents to give such declaration. The appellant was not given any opportunity...
Hirdeo Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR449(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant who was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the CISF) was proceeded departmentally. It was alleged that on 11th/12th February, 1992, he was assigned 'C shift duty from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., at Watch Tower No. III of 'B' Plant but was found sitting and dozing in front of small fire which amounted to negligence of duty. It is further alleged that when the Inspector T. Chakraborty found him sitting and dozing while on duty, he assaulted the said Inspector which amounted to misconduct. The appellant submitted show cause reply denying the charges and to exonerate him from the charges. He also took part in the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty of both the charges, wherein after he was noticed and on receipt of reply, he was dismissed from service on 12th October, 1992. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected.2. It appears that the appellant thereafter moved before this Court in CWJC No. 11947 of 1997...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »