Jharkhand Court June 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.
Vyas Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR410(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.2.2000 and 29.2.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellant guilty under Sections 376, IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for eight years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to further undergo RI for one year.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the forenoon of 25.6.1997 the informant Sugia Devi was collecting forest wood in Desahi Chonha forest when the appellant caught her from behind and forcibly committed rape. It is further stated that when the appellant was fleeing after satisfying his lust, she raised alarm and many of the witnesses saw him fleeing. The matter was reported to the villagers and a panchayati was held, after which the matter was reported to the police next day. The officer-in-charge Sadar P.S., district Palama...
Raj Kumar Burnwal Vs. Tuni Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC732; [2007(1)JCR524(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.3.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Koderma in M.T.S. No. 22 of 2002.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Court below without taking into consideration the need and capacity of the petitioner has directed to pay Rs. 1500/-per month as alimony; and Rs. 500/- per month as Court expenses.3. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Court below is arbitrary and has been passed without giving due consideration of the income of the petitioner. Learned Counsel relied on a decision of learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Padmavathi and Ors. v. C. Lakshminarayana : AIR2002Kant424 and submitted that the Court below while granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has not exercised his discretion judicially and in accord...
Mohammad MobIn Mian and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR513(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. All the four appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 3.2.2001 passed by Shri Mazhar Imam, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 365 of 1996 whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 379, IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years Under Section 414 of the IPC and all the appellants have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.2. Brief facts loading to this appeal are that in the morning of 11.9.1995 Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Palamau received a confidential information that some illegal Kattha was being brought from Panki. Accordingly he arranged the raid on Daltonganj-Panki Road along with constables on a Jeep bearing No. BRO 6178 at about 5.40 a.m., and blocked the check/ Naka near Mela River Bridge. Further stated abou...
Nagendra Rajwar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR128(Jhr)]
ORDERD.P. Singh, J.1. All the four appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.1.2001/27.1.2001 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 464 of 1994 whereby and whereunder all the four appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the night of 2.2.1991 the informant Chandrika Ram was coming back from Hussainabad market when the appellants at about 9 p.m. asked him as to why he has not paid Rs. 2000/- as demanded earlier. It is further alleged that when he asked for time to pay the amount he was assaulted by all the appellants resulting in fracture of his right and left hand. It is further alleged that on his alarm witnesses came and saved his life. He reported the matter to police in the morning of 3.2.1991 on the basis of which Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 14/...
Voltas Limited Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR518(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. These writ petitions having been preferred by same petitioner M/s Voltas Limited and common question of law being involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Four of the writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89, wherein, the petitioner has exhausted all its statutory remedies, such as, appeal, review and revision but being unsuccessful and aggrieved, has preferred these writ petitions. The case numbers and their respective assessment year are as follows: Case No. Assessment year W.P.(T)No. 482/05 1985-86 W.P.(T)No. 467/05 1986-87 W.P.(T)No. 493/05 1987-88 W.P.(T)No. 466/05 1988-89Other three writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93. The petitioner has challenged the orders of remand, as made by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation. Case numbers of these three writ petitions and their respective assessment year are as follows: Case No. Assessment Y...
Ranchi University Vs. Sri Parsuram Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR41]; [2006(4)JCR373(Jhr)]; (2007)ILLJ256Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Both these appeals have been preferred by Ranchi University, Ranchi, against the common judgment dated 1st March 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 90 of 2001 and C.WJ.C. No. 308 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while dismissed both the writ petitions preferred by the Ranchi University, Ranchi, affirmed the common Award dated 15th July 1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in Reference Case Nos. 10 of 1996 and 1 of 199.2. By the aforesaid common Award dated 15th July 1999, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workmen-respondents, holding their orders of termination illegal and unjustified and directed the Ranchi University to reinstate them with full back wages and other consequential benefits.3. One of the questions was raised by the University as to whether the University is an Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter...
Jharkhand Bet-net Association Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR142(Jhr)]
Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner, Jharkhand BET-NET Association, for a direction on the respondents to take steps for appointment of Lecturers in different Constituent Colleges of the Universities.2. According to the petitioner-Association, its members having already passed NET examination, undertaken by University Grant Commission (hereinafter to be referred as 'U.G.C.') or BET examination, are qualified for appointment to the posts of Lecturer, but the respondents are not making appointments inspite of vacancies in different colleges and suffering of the students.3. The Vice Chancellors of the Universities of the State of Jharkhand and Jharkhand Public Service Commission were directed to give time frame for appointment to the posts of Lecturer, as vacant in different Constituent Colleges of the Universities and University Departments. Affidavits were filed, but no specific time frame was given. Although, most of the Universities informed that ...
Ram NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR129(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner joined the Government service as a Constable on 1.11.1966. He was retired from service on attaining superannuation on 28th of February, 2005 at the age of 58 years. Respondents have passed an order No. 340 of 2005 dated 2nd of March. 2005. whereby the date of retirement of the petitioner has been declared to be 1.11.2003 and recovery of salary for 16 months has been ordered from his leave encashment and gratuity. Validity of this order has been called in question on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to the service record. According to the petitioner, his date of birth has been correctly recorded in the service record as 1947 and thus petitioner was required to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. It is further contended that the recovery ordered by the impugned order is also illegal and impermissible in law.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner...
Jagdish Prasad Sinha Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR305(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. By Court: Petitioner retired from service of the Government of Bihar on 31st December, 1997 as a Jan Sewak while on deputation in the Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatrics and Associated Sciences (briefly R.I.N.P.A.S.), Kanke, Ranchi. He has approached this Court claiming the following retiral benefits.(ii) Retirement Benefits in the shape of-(a) Pension, (b) D.C.R., gratuity,(c) General Provident Fund money (with uptodate statutory interest),(d) Cash equivalent of unutilised earned leave,(e) Group Insurance money and(f) Commuted value of a third of the pension2. Besides the aforesaid claims, he has also claimed Deputation allowance for the period 28th of August, 1983 to 31st December, 1997 and interest on the arrears of retiral benefits. It is stated in the writ petition that while in service petitioner was deputed to RINPAS at Ranchi as Garden Overseer vide Director of Agriculture, Bihar's memo. No. 10845 dated 20th of August, 1983. While on deputation, he attaine...
N.R. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR358(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. All these interlocutory applications arose out of aforesaid Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 35, 36 & 37 of 2004, which were disposed of on 30.3.2005. Since in all these interlocutory applications, common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners haves filed these interlocutory applications under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substituted arbitrator in place of O.P. No. 3 the Superintending Engmeer, Road Construction Department, Dhanbad, the named arbitrator.3. Petitioners' case is that pursuant to common order dated 30.3.2005 passed in Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 45, 46 and 47 of 2004, the dispute and differences were referred to O.P. No.3 -Superintending Engineer for decision. It is stated that respondent No.3 -the Superintending Engineer refused and declined the appointment and refused to be arbitrator in all the cases and,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »