Jharkhand Court April 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.
Harendra Rai @ Herendra Prasad Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR611(Jhr)]
1. The appellant was tried under Sections 302 and 307, IPC before the 4th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. On being found guilty, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, both under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.2. The appellant was a tenant under PW-6. Om Prakash Sah and the said Om Prakash Sah is the husband of the deceased, Chandrawati Devi. The appellant's son was spoiling the son of PW6. Om Prakash Sah by not allowing him to study but by engaging him in playful activities. The son of the appellant was also not behaving well with the other persons in the house. Therefore, PW 6 asked the appellant to vacate the house. This was two days prior to the date of incident. On 7.4.1995, PW-6 was sitting in his shop. The appellant was coming in front of his shop with a sword covered with a sheath. On seeing the appellant, PW-6 asked him as to why he is having a sword. The appellant telling him 'see' inflicted and cut PW-6. PW-...
Amit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR230(Jhr)]
ORDER1. In this public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, who was an inmate of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, has brought to the notice of this Court the present condition of the inmates. It is alleged that the Jail authorities are violating the human rights by not providing them with appropriate prescribed food, medicine, sanitation etc.2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, they have tried to deny the allegations, made in the writ petition.3. However, we are of the view that the matter should be monitored by he District Judges of each district of the State. Accordingly, the following orders are being passed for the present:(i) The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi/District Judges of all the districts are directed to visit their respective jail, enquire into the condition of the inmates, particularly, the food, as is being supplied, and the medical treatment, as is being given to the inmates, and will submit the report to this Court by the next d...
Nabiul Hassan Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3948; [2006(3)JCR270(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. The sole appellant Nabiul Hassan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.02.2000 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.T. No. 270 of 1997/2 of 1998 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and seven years respectively which shall run concurrently.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that one Gauri Devi, minor daughter of Mahabir Prasad Manjhi, P.S. Pakuria distrct Pakur, went missing from her house in the after noon of 7th June 1997. According to informant, father of Gauri Devi, earlier Gauri Devi has gone to see television in the house of one Sohrab Mian, a neighbor. He suspected that the appellant Nabiul Hassan has taken away his daughter for the purpose of marriage. According to him he waited his daughter to return thereafter searched in the night but ultimately when she could not be traced till 13th June 1997 he we...
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Its Constituted Attorney V ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR27(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, for the petitioner and Mr. S. Srivastava, for respondent No. 1.2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by the order under review this Court directed the disciplinary authority to exercise jurisdiction under Section 26(3) of the Rule, but the disciplinary authority had already referred the matter to the appointing authority, i.e. the chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD for short), who was a higher authority, observing that the charges were of serious nature and accordingly the appointing authority (CMD) exercised such jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and passed orders of dismissal on 4.3.1994. The CMD, who was also the appellate authority, by order dated 26.12.1994, dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 4.3.1994. In these circumstances, this Court held that the said order dated 26.12.1994 should not have been passed by the same authority, who passed the order on 4.3.1994.3. It is submitted that the Manag...
Asharful Haque and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR225(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 3.3.2003 of the cognizance of the offence under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner in Gumla P.S. Case No. 102 of 2000.2. The brief fact of the case as contained in the written report of the informant Peter Barwa is that on 12.6.2000 he intended to take L.P.G. connection from M/s. Ujala Gas Agency, Gumla and when he enquired, the owner of the said Gas Agency conveyed the estimated cost of Rs. 4000/- for new gas connection. He immediately made over Rs. 4000/- to Md. Mustafa Alam assuming that he was the owner of Ujala Gas Agency. The informant was asked to come after an hour so that domestic Consumer Gas Card could be made available to him. Pursuant to such direction when the informant again came to the Ujala Gas Agency one of the petitioners Mustafa Ala...
Suresh Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Arti Choubey and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR47(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this revision application, preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the tenants-defendants-petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2005 passed in Eviction Suit No. 7 of 2002 by learned Munsif, Daltonganj, whereby the landlord-plaintiffs-opposite party's suit for eviction filed on the ground of personal necessity, has been decreed and the defendants-petitioners have been directed to have over the vacant possession of the premises.2. The landlords-plaintiffs' case in short is that the suit premises was once owned and possessed by one Jagarnath Choubey, the grandfather-in-law of the plaintiffs. The said Jagarnath Choubey had a daughter, namely, Ram Pyari Devi, who became widow in her early age. She was brought to parental home by her father and in order to make provision for subsistence, her father executed a deed of maintenance ...
Novelty Dresses and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR288(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 176 of 1992, corresponding to Trial No. 2729 of 1992 including the order impugned dated 24.3.1992, passed by Special Court for Economic Offences, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioners.2. The informant opposite party No. 4, Income Tax Officer, Ward-II, Hazaribagh filed a complaint case being No. 176 of 1992 before the special Court stating therein that the petitioner No. 1 was the registered firm M/s. Novelty Dresses and the other petitioners were the partners of the said firm having equal share in profit and loss account, who derived income from business in ready made dresses and hosiery. The petitioners had filed return of income on 27.8.1990 showing total income of Rs. 48,240/- for the assessment...
Bhawani Mahto and Munshi Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3931
1. Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1991 is at the instance of the complainant, Bhuneshwar Prasad, against the acquittal of A-1 to A-10; whereas Cr. Appeal No. 73 of 1991 is by the accused-appellants (A-12 & A-11) against their conviction and sentence and since both the cases arise out of a single Sessions Case, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. The appellants are A-12 and A-11 in Sessions Trial No. 27/1988. In this judgment, they will be referred as A-12 and A-11, in the order, as they were arrayed before the trial court. They were tried alongwith acquitted accused, who were arrayed as A-1 to 10. The trial judge framed charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code against A-1 to A-10 and Section 148 against A-11 and 12. The appellants, A-12 and A-11, were also charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitted accused, A-1 to A-10 were charged under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial judge, while acquitting A-1 to A-10, fo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Metallurgical Engineering Consultants ( ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR63(Jhr)]
1. Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2002 has been preferred by the Revenue-Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, against the assessee M/s Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., Ranchi, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 27th May, 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna; Circuit Bench at Ranchi in I.T.A.No. 314(Pat)/91, relating to the assessment year 1985-86.It appears that a defective appeal was preferred on 26th October, 2002. Although the defects, as pointed out by the office, were removed at a much later stage, no step was taken to get the appeal listed under the heading 'for admission'.2. The other Tax Appeal No. 12 of 2003 has been preferred by the Revenue-Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, against the same assessee i.e. M/s Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., Ranchi under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 27th May, 2...
Sheo NaraIn Singh Vs. the Mining Area Development Authority, Through I ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR55(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The writ petitioner/appellant, Sheo Narain Singh, was appointed in the Jharia Mines Board of Health on 26th September, 1973 for a period of two months as Encroachment Inspector on a consolidated salary of Rs. 190/- per month subject to approval of Jharia Mines Board of Health. The said appointment of two months was approved. The appellant, Sheo Narain Singh, thereafter represented for granting him the scale of pay of Lower Division Clerk and to designate him as Land Inspector but he was asked to continue until further order. The Board having considered his claim re-designated him as Encroachment Guard on 24th May, 1975 and he was asked to work under one Ramdeo Singh, Estate Supervisor, but the appellant did not choose to join the duties. The Jharia Mines Board of Health by the order dated 16th June, 1975 asked the appellant, Sheo Narain Singh, as to why a disciplinary action be not taken against him having flouted the direction to join under Ramdeo Singh, Estate Superv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »