Jharkhand Court August 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.
Nageshwar Singh and Jeetan Singh Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR149(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.11.1986 (Annexure 5) passed by respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 122 R-15 of 1977-78 directing for restoration of the lands bearing R.S. Plot Nos. 960, 461, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 999 measuring an area of 135 acres under Khata No. 56 of Village Ugra, P.S. Senha, District Lohardaga and the order dated 9.3.1997 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Revision No. 570 of 1986 dismissing the said revision preferred by the petitioner.2. The father of respondents No. 5 to 7, namely, Late Chandra Oraon filed an application under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') being S.A.R. Case No. 77/111 of 1977-78 for restoration of land against the petitioner No. 1 and one Ram Lagan Singh Son of Late Indra Nath Singh. (In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that Ram Lagan Singh had no Interest or possession over the land covered by the proceeding as th...
The Jharkhand Rajya Bhu-map and Bandobast Arajpatrit Karmchari Sangh ( ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR553(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner is an association of Non-gazetted Employees of Survey & Settlement Department of State, said to be registered as an Employees Union under Registration No. 663 dated 7th April, 1967. It is alleged that Moharrirs of the Survey & Settlement Department under the Ministry of Land Reforms and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand have been discriminated as far the payment of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- is concerned and the recommendations of Fitment Appellate Committee have not been granted till date, though such recommendations have been implemented in case of other departments.2. Accordingly, this petition has been filed seeking a direction for implementation of the recommendations of Fitment Appellate Committee and further direction for release of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from 1st April, 1997, the effective date for payment, and fixation with effect from 1st January, 1996.3. According to the petitioner-association before 4thPay Commission, the...
Raj Kumar Neeraj Vs. Ranchi Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR650(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 2780 dated 19th September, 2000, whereby and whereunder, it has been ordered to recover 40. salary from the petitioner, on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent during the said period. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order, contained in Memo No. 3014, dated 21st October, 2000, whereby and whereunder, salary of the petitioner for a period of 149 days has been deducted on account of unauthorized absence from service.2. As the case can be disposed of on short points, it is not necessary to discuss ill the facts, except the relevant one.3. Admittedly, the petitioner had not attended the duty for about 40 days i.e., from 3rd June, 2000 to 11th July, 2000.With regard to certain other period, I he respondents have also alleged that the petitioner was uanuthorizedly absent from duty for about 149 days, as detailed in letter No. 3014, dated 21st Oc...
Bishunath Nandi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR571(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 167/Land Reforms dated 23.3.1998 (Annexure-1), issued by respondent No. 2 informing him that the Commissioner has stayed the permission of transfer of leasehold right in his favour and directing stay of registration, if any, pending the enquiry into the objections raised by respondent No. 6. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing letter No. 258 dated 20.4.1998 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent No. 5, whereby he had informed the respondent No. 4 that necessary action may be taken in connection with permission of sale of the premises in question in favour of respondent No. 6.3. Admittedly, one Ashit Ranjan Paul sold his Khasmahal leasehold right for a portion of the premises to respondent No. 6. Sarita Devi Gupta by registered sale deed dated 18.2.1991 and by registered sale deed dated 18.3.1998. he sold some portion to the petitioner also.4. Respondent No. 6 raised the following objections before the Commis...
Pasupati Chaudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR123(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. He filed a writ petition', being C.W.J.C. No. 2112 of 1999, claiming promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 29th September, 1999 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1994. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, petitioner has been granted promotion vide order dated 14th June, 2001 with effect from 15th September, 1994. However, he has been allowed monetary benefits with effect from the date of joining the post. Petitioner, thereafter, joined the post on 27th June, 2002.2. Petitioner has again come to this Court seeking a direction for payment of arrears of salary with effect from the date of his promotion i.e. 15th September, 1994 on the ground that persons, juni...
Sandeep Kumar Singh and Kunal Chandra Vs. Bihar State Food and Civil S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR522(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order by which respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (of WPC No. 3696 of 2006) have been allotted the work for transportation and handling of food grains, edible oil, cloth, sugar, etc. from one district to another district of the respondents-Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, despite the fact that petitioners were the lowest tenderers.3. The respondents-Corporation published a tender inviting applications for the work of transportation and handling of food grains and other commodities from one district to another district of the Corporation and outside the State of Bihar. Pursuant to the said notice petitioners along with others submitted their tenders. It is stated that the petitioners were the lowest tenderers but the work order has been illegally allotted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is alleged that respondent No. 2-The Managing Director. Bihar State Food and Civil ...
Mahesh Kumar Sanwaria Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR504(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 18.5.2004 passed by Sri D. Baranwal, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. case No. 1590 of 2002 whereby learned Magistrate having been found that the primafacie, case is made out under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code summoned the petitioner to face trial.2. The facts giving rise this application are that complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint stating therein that the petitioner when offered to sell his land, Girja Devi (wife of the complainant) and Poonam Devi (younger brother's wife of the complainant) purchased the land by two separate sale deeds, bearing No. 1318 and 1180 for a valuable consideration on getting assurance that the land is free from encumbrances; recital to that effect was also made in the sale deed.Further case is that on coming to the possession of both the lands when the complainant applied for new electric connect...
Ratan Mahato and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR33(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against their conviction for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as each of them has been sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for three years while appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 stand further convicted for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code acquitting appellant Nos. 2 and 3, and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trail No. 83 of 1995. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Factual backgrounds are as follows:Appellant No. 1 Ratan Mahato was married with Kumbha Devi, sister of informant, Mangal Chandra Gorain in the year 1990 with usual Hindu customs. According to the informant, after the marriage for nearly four years, they lived peacefully. However, since last one year, all the convicts were pressing Kumbha Devi for television and cash. Further alleged that Kumbha Devi ...
Vaishali Kshetriya GramIn Bank Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Chief ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR151(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has. prayed for setting aside the award (Annexure 7) passed by respondent No. 3 in Reference No. 41 of 1992 under which the tribunal held that the termination of the workmen (respondents No. 5, 6 and 7) and denying their reinstatement and regularisation in services of the Bank was not valid and justified and directed the petitioner Bank to regularise them in service from 1.1.1991 and to pay at least 30% of the full back wages from that day.2. No body appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Srivastava, on behalf of the workmen-respondents No. 4 to 7.3. The following dispute was referred by order dated 4.6.1992 for adjudication:Whether the action of the management of Vaishally Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating/retrenching S/Shri Collector Singh, Jaikant Thakur and Mithilesh Lal from their services and further denying their reinstatement/regularisation is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled? 4. The ca...
Lorry Broker Union Association Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR507a(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Petitioners have challenged the action of the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad, by which the offices of petitioners Nos. 2 to 6, who are said to be members of petitioner No. 1, were sealed on 17.4.1998 on the alleged violation of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short). They have further challenged the notices issued to them (Annexure-1 series), by which they were directed to file affidavit regarding compliance of the said provision. Petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the members of petitioner No. 1-association and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be coerced to take out a license under the said provision.3. Petitioner's contention is that they settle the hire charges between the goods transporters, and the persons who intend to transport the goods. They cannot be said to be agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by goods carriages as contemplated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »