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.
Bimla Prasad Ojha Vs. Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Its Managi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR251(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The State Housing Board allotted a HIG house to the petitioner, but with a lesser constructed area than what was mentioned in the notice of allotment and with several deficiencies. The house has no proper door planks, necessary fixtures, water connection proper, repairs, flooring and white washing. The petitioner has, thus, sought direction on the respondents to proportionately lower down the price to the extent of the reduced area and to remove all the deficiencies or to compensate the petitioner for not handing over the proper house by the respondents.2. The petitioner's case is that a notice was published for allotment of different categories of house/houses/flats. The constructed area of the house in High Income Group (HIG) was 1571 sq. ft. for an estimated price of Rs. 12,36,622/- The allotment was to be made by lottery, on 8.11.2004. In the lottery the petitioner get HIG House No. 66. The allotment letter was issued to the petitioner without mentioning the ...
Birendra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1053
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30-8-05 passed in B.P. No. 965/05 in C.P. Case No. 325/02 by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro and also for the re-arrest of the petitioner.2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner/ complainant instituted C.P. Case No. 325/02 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner had entered into partnership with the respondent No. 2 and several partnership firms were constituted as against partnership deeds time to time executed by them viz. M/s. Akshay Steel, M/s. Vishwanath Transport, M/s. Chandra Transport Agency and so on. The petitioner had invested a huge amount in the aforesaid partnership firms. According to the terms and partnership deed and agreement relating to Akshay Steels, its bank account was opened in Vijaya Bank, Naya More Branch, Bokaro Steel City to be operated under the joint si...
Ashok Kumar Rout and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR124(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioners were recruited as Metric Trained Teachers initially. They claimed higher pay scale on the basis of their qualifications and experience. Their claim was rejected vide memo No. 853 dated 29.10.1999. One of the petitioners, namely, Ashok Kumar Rout, filed C.W.J.C. No. 3631 of 1999 before this Court challenging the rejection order. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.6.2001 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and to determine whether the petitioner was actually entitled for promotion to next higher grade-IV of B.A. Trained scale w.e.f. 4.5.1995, taking into consideration the availability of vacancy and eight years of completion of service in the Metric Trained pay scale. It was further directed that if any representation is filed by the petitioner, the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga will place the matter before the appropriate Committee and communicate the decision. Petitioner has placed on r...
Amiya Kumar Chandra Vs. Coal India Limited, Through Its Chairman,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR527(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner had prayed for a direction upon respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider his case of promotion and place him in the seniority list above the respondent No. 4 with all consequential benefits.2. Mr. Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner has since retired on 31st January, 2001 and therefore if the petitioner is placed above respondent No. 4 in the seniority list he can get only monitory benefits.He further submitted that petitioner was always senior in E-3, E-4 and E-5 grade but by order dated 23rd April, 1997 (Annexure-9), respondent No. 4 (and one Mr. B.N. Samanto) were given notional seniority /notional pay fixation in M-1 grade w.e.f. 29.3.1996 on the ground that on that date their immediate junior was promoted to M-1 grade. He further submitted that petitioner made several representations but no reply was received from the respondents on the same and therefore he was compelled to file this writ petition.He submitted that justice has n...
Sakhi Chand Singh Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Through ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR401(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, a driver of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was chargesheeted and was departmentally proceeded with. Thereafter, by order 07.12.1988 as contained in Annexure - 5, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service with a further direction that to compensate the loss sustained by the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- shall be recovered from the dues legally payable to the petitioner.2. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 07.12.1988 (Annexure-5) before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1640 of 1993 which was disposed of by order dated 25.11.1993 as contained in Annexure - 9 whereby, the High Court observed that since the question raised in the application involved violation of Certified Standing Order which cannot be determined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and therefore, it was observed that the against the order of compulsory retirement, he may raise an industrial dispute.The petitioner thereafter u...
Sri Ram Sah and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR644(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This Cr. Revision application has been preferred by the petitioners herein for setting aside the order impugned dated 23.9.2005 passed by Sri. Gopal Pandey Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Godda in G.R. No. 109 of 1997 corresponding to T.R. No. 1074 of 2005 whereby and whereunder Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code was added on the petition of the informant under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for commitment to the court of Sessions.2. The brief fact of the case as it stands narrated in the statement of the informant, Jai Kant Shukla before the police at Referal Hospital, Thakur Gangro is that when his son Pappu Shukla was sleeping on the Verandah in the night intervening 20/21-2-1997, at about 10 p.m. as many as 17 named accused persons, alleged to be the members of the extremists organization, self styled as the 'group of Shanti Pal' kidnapped Pappu Shukla. At that time the informant was sleeping at some distance on a different Chowki who out of fea...
Arbind Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR285(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This writ application can be disposed of on a short point, which has been raised by the petitioner challenging the legality of Annexure-31, i.e. the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resource Department, Bihar. It is submitted that from said order dated 31.7.2002 it appears that when the impugned order (Annexure-31) was passed by the Government of Bihar, Water Resource Department, the petitioner was posted at Chaibasa within the territory of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijay Billing and Anr. reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 697 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhr), the State of Bihar could not have passed the impugned order dated 31.7.2002 and, therefore, the same is apparently without jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has held as follows (JCR page 406) :- 12. In such a situation and in such a ...
Mahadeo Prasad Burnwal Vs. Atpendra Roy Choudhary and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar88; [2007(1)JCR228(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.4.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2002 whereby the lower appellate court has set aside the order dated 11.8.2002 passed by learned trial court, rejecting the petition fled by the appellant-defendant No. 4 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.3. The plaintiff filed suit being Title (D) Suit No. 54 of 2001 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Deoghar praying relief for declaration that the plaintiff is a co-owner and has a preemptory right to purchase the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property or from altering the status of the property.4. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of the. joint property being Plot Nos. 196,197 and 207 (part) also numbered as Town Plot No. 1401, measuring 4 Kattha, 10 Dhur, equivalent...
Ashok Kumar Nahar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR433(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka in Rev. Misc. Case No. 149/1989. 90 contained in Annexure 6 whereby, the respondent No. 5 was allowed to retain the possession of land measuring 1 Katha and the hut constructed over it and also to retain possession of the adjacent 2 Bigha of Parti land for her livelihood.The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 15.7.1998 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, whereby he dismissed the appeal and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, to issue Parcha in favour of the respondent No. 5 Barki Baski under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947.The petitioner has also challenged An-nexure-8 which was passed by the Halka Karamchari issuing Parchas in Favour of the respondent No. 5 pursuant to the order passed by t...
Smt. Gita Sinha Alias Smt. Gita Sahay Vs. Nand Rani Hari Krishna Samaj ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR230(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.03.2005 passed by learned Subordinate Judge II, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 145 of 1999, whereby the Court below has rejected the. plaintiff-petitioner's application dated 09.02.2005 filed under Order XVIII Rule 3A read with Order XXVI Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for issuance of commission for examination of the plaintiff as a witness in the suit.2. The said petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner has been suffering from throat cancer and her eyesight has been badly affected. Her vision of left eye has also completely gone and she has been advised to keep distance of atleast 7 feet from others in order to avoid infection. Plaintiff was given radio active iodine and no body is allowed to go near her unless he wears apron to protect against radiation emanating from her body. It has been stated that the plaintiff wishes to make certain th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »