Jharkhand Court May 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.
Aveek Sarkar and anr. and Gullu Mirchandani Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4211; [2006(3)JCR421(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred their petitions under Section 482, CrPC for the quashing of Kotwali (Ranchi) P.S. Case No. 376 and 2000 as also the order passed by the CJM, Ranchi whereby and whereunder it was directed to issue warrants of arrest against them with further prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding.2. To re-capitulate, the brief facts of the case are that a Complaint Case No. 572 of 2000 was filed by the Complainant Ram Prakash Tiwari, National President of Vishwa Hindu Sanatan Dharma Prachar Prasar Sewa Trust le. the Opposite Party No. 2 in both7 the petitions herein alleging inter alia that on 8.9.2000 while he was organizing a meeting at Branch Office, Ranchi a copy of the English Daily 'The Telegraph,' Calcutta Edition dated 8.1.2000 was made over to him and on perusing the same he was shocked to see an advertisement of ONIDA TV showing Goddess Durga carrying various models of ONIDA T.V. manufactured by M/s Mire Electronics Ltd in her hands. It w...
Charka Lohra Vs. Jitya Lohra and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR351(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.12.2003 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the plaintiffs prayer for amendment in the plaint. The plaintiffs had filed the said application under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating, inter alia, that the defendants in their written statement have taken the plea of previous partition by virtue of a compromise decree passed in Partition Suit No. 314 of 1945 by the Court of Munsif, Ranchi. It has been stated that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the said compromise decree passed in the said Partition Suit. It was further stated that if there is any such decree, the same must have been obtained by fraud. Since in the written statement the defendants have pleaded previous partition on that basis, the petitioner prayed for amendment in the plaint in order to bring about the necessary fact relating to the said...
NayeemuddIn Mian and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ676
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. Petitioners have been jointly convicted under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code with their father Israil Mian (Since dead) whereas the petitioner Nayeemuddin Mian has been separately convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of Sri. Ram Siya Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in Complaint Case No. 449 of 1989 corresponding to T.R.No. 661 of 1993.2. Against the order of conviction and substantive sentence passed therein, the petitioners herein preferred Cr. App. No. 48 of 2003, which is presently pending in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. They have challenged the order impugned dated 132-2006 whereby and whereunder the petitions dated 17-1-2006 and 23-1-2006 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to call for Ext. 2 and Ext. 3 which were the entries made in the station diary and proved by P.W. 6, Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh. By bringing about the present application u...
Niraj Kumar Singh Vs. National Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR37(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-National Institute of Technology.2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter bearing Ref. No. NIT (EJ/467/05 dated 1.3.2005, whereby respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner.3. The case was heard on 21.6.2005 and this Court passed the following order:It appears that while passing the order of termination, the authority has violated the order dated 10.1.2002 passed by this Court in WPS No. 6058 of 2001 subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 126/2002.In my view, this amounts to contempt of this Court.The authority who passes the order of termination will file counter affidavit and also file a show cause to satisfy the Court as to why the proceeding for contempt be not initiated against him.As prayed for, put up this case after four weeks.4. In compliance o...
Swayambar Singh Munda and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4199
D.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.12.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella held all the appellants guilty under Section 366(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 6th October,1997 Lakhimani Kumari, daughter of the informant, was getting the water for her buffaloes from the canal situated in Mauja Kutum, P.S. Ichagarh, district Singhbhm West, when appellant Swayambar Singh Munda forcibly took her away to his house situated in the same village. According to the informant, the girl tried to raise alarm but she was gagged. The incident was seen by a small girl Bati, who ran to the informant and gave the details, after which the informant along with his wife, PW 5, went to the house of the appellants and tried to rescue their daughter but appella...
Nandipati Das Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR378]; [2006(3)JCR268(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay him the retiral dues and to fix his pension, taking into consideration the last pay drawn by him. He has also challenged the office order No. 422 dated 12th June, 2002, issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as 'JSEB'), whereby and where-under while sanctioning the D.C.R. Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,85,006.25 (rupees one lac eighty five thousand six and twenty five paise), it has ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 99,828.00 (rupees ninety nine thousand eight hundred and twenty eight) from the OCR. Gratuity, on the ground of excess amount, paid to firm. It has also been prayed to direct the respondents to pay him the amount towards the leave encashment and difference of salary, due to revision of pay, for the period from 1st April. 1997 to 31st January, 2000.2. The petitioner, who was in the service of the Jharkhand State Ele...
Raj Kumar and Brothers, Bermo Through Its Partner Sri Satish Kumar Sak ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar7; [2006(4)JCR462(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.1.06 passed by learned Court below whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 39 of the C.P.C seeking transfer of the decree from the Court of Sub-Judge, Chaibasa to the Court of learned District Judge, Alipore South, 24 Parganas (West Bengal), has been rejected on the ground that the application under Section 39 C.P.C is prematured and incomplete. The learned Court below is of the view that since no execution petition has been filed in the Court as yet and nothing has been stated about any property of the defendant situated within the State of Jharkhand, there is no occasion for the petition under Section 39 C.P.C.2. Mr. B.L. Jain, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order of learned Court below is contrary to the provisions of Section 39 of the C.P.C. The petitioner filed an application under the provisions of Section 39...
Citizen's Cause Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar15; [2006(3)JCR18(Jhr)]
1. The parties, including the State, were allowed time on 3rd March, 2006 to address the Court on the following issues:(i) Whether some regulatory measures can be taken for harvesting the rain water in the existing private/government or other quarters/houses, as may be constructed in future?(ii) Whether some regulatory measures can be taken to ensure that no tank/pond/reservoir, private or government, is fill up without permission of a competent authority? and(iii) Whether any regulatory measure can be taken in regard to lifting of ground water?2. Inspite of the specific order, though more than two months have passed, neither any progress has been shown nor the intention of the State has been brought on record. Learned Advocate General only informed that the matter is pending with the State Government for decision, which may be taken at an early date.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking into considering the suffering of the public in general, residing in the capit...
Hari Shankar Singh @ Hari Kishore Singh Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkh ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1503; [2006(3)JCR74(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The appellant was convicted for commission of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 307, IPC and RI for a period of 2 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act by the impugned judgment dated 29.7.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 20/98, which is under challenged in this appeal.2. In short the prosecution case is that the informant Nav Kumar Soren (PW 1) a Sub-Inspector of Police was on patrolling duty on 21.9.1997 along with other police officials. All of them reached Lal-matia Mission Chowk at about 7.40 p.m. At that time he received information that at Lalmatia by pass road near the crusher machine situated near a bridge, the passengers of a Bus were being looted by the miscreants. On this informations, the informant and the police party reached at the spot at 7.50 p.m. and saw that a Bus...
Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Smt. Munni Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR454(Jhr)]
Navniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The present civil revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against order of eviction of the petitioner passed on 25.8.2003 by Munsif, Khagaria in Civil Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2001/4 of 2001. The sole opposite party smt. Munni Devi was the plaintiff/landlady. Both the parties are represented and heard at length.2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed eviction suit before Munsif, Khagaria against the defendant-petitioner for his eviction on ground of personal necessity. The case was tried under procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act. The plaintiffs case, as per the plaint, was that the suit premises, which is Schedule B, the plaintiff had purchased it from Md. Israfil, Bibi Majda Khatoon being son and daughter of Abdul Razzaque and several others who were children of Md. Latifuddin by registered sale deed dated 20.11.2000. It may be mentione...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »