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.
Dr. Raman Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4496
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The present petition has been brought about under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution of Complaint Case No. 61 of 1999 including the Impugned order dated 29-1-2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner and another under Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief fact giving rise to the present case is that the opposite party No.2 had admitted his wife Madhu Rajgarhia in Nagarmal Seva Sadan Hospital, Ranchi which is a private Hospital situated at Lake Road, Ranchi for the operation of her appendicitis. II was conveyed to the opposite party No. 2 on 25-12-1998 that the operation shall be conducted by the petitioner, who prescribed several medicines, injections to be used in the operation and, accordingly, it was purchased and provided. On the same day at about 8 a.m. when the wife of the complainant/opposite party No...
Akbar Ali Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4489
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned order dated 29-3-2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Rev. No. 9 of 2004 as also impugned order dated 9-1-2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 787 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected.2. Briefly stated, the complainant Nagen Mahto had filed Complaint Case No. 278 of 1986 which was forwarded and, accordingly; Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 63 of 1997 was instituted. It was alleged therein lhat the complainant Nagen Mahto was served with ' a notice from the Land Development Bank at Chas calling upon to pay the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 11,904/- on information, that the complainant had borrowed it from the said Bank. After receiving the notice, the complainant/informant went to the Bank, enquired the matter and conveyed I the Manager that at no point of tim...
Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4526
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Tiwart, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Mishra, learned G.P.-II of the respondents.2. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding being case No. C 3-36/2001, instituted on the basis of an offence report lodged by the Forest Officials against the petitioner, who is the Divisional Railway Manager and three others namely, the Train Driver, Bogy Conductor and Train Guard for the alleged commission of the offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989).3. It appears that earlier several cases were lodged by the State Forest Officials against Railway Officials for the alleged commission of the offences under the Forest Act in allowing the illegal transportation of the Forest wood. The Railway authorities challenged the action of the State Forest Officials instituting criminal cases against their authorities by filing several writ pe...
Chhajuram Agrawalla Vs. Rameshwar Shaw and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR281(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. This civil revision has been preferred by the tenant-defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as the B.B.C. Act] against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Munsif-I, Dhanbad in Title Eviction Suit No. 8/2001. The plaintiffs-landlord filed suit for eviction of the tenant-defendant on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant is tenant in the suit premises, which consists of three interconnected rooms on the first floor and one room, one verandah, one bathroom and a common latrine on the ground floor on monthly rent of Rs. 250 per month payable according to the English calendar month. The family of the plaintiff No. 1 has now become large consisting of his wife, two sons, their wives and five grandsons and for the eleven member's family, accommodation in their possession...
Saligram Choubey Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR260(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order as contained in letter dated 28.2.2005 by which he has been compelled to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1971 and his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 2.2.1947. According to the petitioner since the age of superannuation of government employee is 60 years, he shall superannuate in 2007. It is contended that respondents wrongly considered the age of superannuation of the petitioner as 58 years on the ground that the age of superannuation of the Govt. employee at the relevant time in the State of Bihar was 58 years. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it is stated that while the petitioner was posted at Sahebganj as A.S.I. he was tentatively allocated to Bihar Cadre as per letter dated 20.7.2002. Petitioner, thereafter, superannuated on 28.2.2005 by district order No. 236/2005 dated 1.3.2005. On the date of superan...
Government Vaccine Institute and the Superintendent, Government Vaccin ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR211(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the award dated 18.9.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7 of 1994, whereby and whereunder it was held that the termination of services of respondent No. 2 being void ab initio, he will be deemed to be in service and entitled to full back wages.3. The father of respondent No. 2 retired on 31.12.1980. After his death, on or about 19.10.1982, her widow approached the then Chief M inister of Bihar for appointment of one of her son, on any vacant post with the petitioner No. 1. The Chief Minister ordered petitioner No. 1 to consider it as a special case. Accordingly, by letter dated 5.11.1982, petitioner No. 2 (the Superintendent, Government Vaccine Institute, Namkum, Ranchi) appointed respondent No. 2 (Shashi Bhushan Choudhary) on purported 'compassionate ground' as 'Mazdoor' and requested the Director of the Health Department to confirm the same. By letter dated 13.9...
Gauri Shankar Ram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR482(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Petition at Flag 'L' (I.A. No. 1833 of 2005) has been filed for condoning the delay of 33 days in filing the instant appeal.2. Having heard counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the grounds shown therein, the delay of 33 days in filing this appeal is condoned and the petition for condonation of delay (LA. No. 1833 of 2005) is hereby allowed.L.P.A. No. 479 of 2005The appellants were posted at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand as Section Officer. They were guided by Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, wherein 58 years of age was prescribed for superannuation. The Government of Jharkhand amended Rule 73 vide Resolution No. 5826, dated 26th October, 2004, and enhanced it from 58 to 60 years.3. The first appellant, Gauri Shankar Ram was to attain 58 years age on 30th November, 2004 whereas second appellant, Ram Badan Ram was to attain 58 years of age on 31st January, 2005. They being posted in the State of Jharkhand, get advantage of amended Rule 73 and continued beyo...
Samsul MomIn Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR297(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Samsul Momin who was convicted for committing offence registered under Sections 366-A and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each on both counts, by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka S.P. in Sessions Case No. 414 of 1985 by Judgment dated 20.7.1991.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 23.1.1985, the informant Shambhu Thakur lodged an FIR at about 9:00 p.m. alleging therein that his cousin sister Simla Kumari aged about 13 years was kidnapped by Samsul Momin (appellant) in order to marry her. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant,3. In order to establish the charges, altogether ten prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 is the prosecutrix Bimla Kumari herself. PW 2 Kuko Devi is the mother of the prosecu...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Md. Shamsad Ansari
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR187(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner-Steel Authority of India Ltd. has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City dated 22.6.2005 in M.J.C. case No 6/2002 whereby he has computed the wages payable to the workman and has also allowed certain benefits under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (in short the Act).2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The Government of Bihar made a reference under Section 10 of the Act between the petitioner-Management and the respondent-workman which was registered as Reference Case No. 3/1995 before the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro for adjudication of the following dispute:Whether removal of Md. Shamsad Ansari Siloman staff No. 455885 a workman. Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City from work with effect from 25.9.1982 is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?3. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, published the award on 22.12.199...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Muzaffar Hussain
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR478(Jhr)]
ORDERI.A. No. 2674 of 20051. Petition at Flag 'L' (I.A. No. 2674 of 2005) has been filed for condoning the delay of 49 days in filling the instant appeal.2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the grounds shown therein, the delay of 49 days in filing this appeal is condoned and the petition for condonation of delay (LA. No. 2674 of 2005) is hereby allowed.L.P.A. No. 651 of 2005The respondent/writ petitioner was retired from the services of the State-appellant w.e.f. 2nd August, 2004 on the ground that he had completed 40 years of service. The letter dated 18th September, 2004 by which such direction was given having challenged, was set aside by the learned Single Judge.3. Similar case fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Pranadhar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand reported in , wherein a Bench of this Court held that a Government servant cannot be retired by pushing back his date of birth arbitrarily, on completion of 40 years service, and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »