Jharkhand Court September 2006 Judgments
Sukra Oraon Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR223(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition a prayer has been made for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 88,417.35 seized from the Saving Bank Account No. 6517/39 and also to release the aforesaid Bank Account No. 6517/39.2. Petitioner's case, inter alia, is that he is a retired employee of Heavy Engineer Corporation Ltd., Ranchi. Certain benefits on retirement were received by the petitioner and the same was deposited in the aforesaid Bank Account maintained with the State Bank of India, Booty More, Ranchi. The petitioner was also assessed to tax with the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5, Ranchi and there is not dispute in so far as his assessments are concerned. It is stated that the petitioner is father-in-law of Dr. Birsa Oraon who is a named accused in the Animal Husbandry Scam, Government of Bihar. It is stated that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the office of Dr. Birsa Oraon and the aforesaid Bank Account was found in the office...
Tag this Judgment!Jaganath Prasad Vs. Santosh Kumar Sahu
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR206(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22/8/2003 purported to have been passed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 (in short the said Act) in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1994 by which the Munsif, Chaibasa directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- with a further direction that the amount of rent shall not be withdrawn by the plaintiff.2. The learned Single Judge , differing with the view taken by a Bench of this court in the case of Mohammad lmteyaz Ahmad v. Abdul Quayum and Ors. 2003(2) JLJR, 17, referred the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the correctness of the said decision.3. In Imteyaz Ahmad's case (supra) a Bench of this court held that if an application under Section 15 of the said Act is filed, the correct procedure would be that the court should tentatively examine the materials available and determine whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Gunadhar Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR560(Jhr)]
Dilip Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present Cr. Appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 44/1994 on 9.5.1995 against the appellant for the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.2. The brief fact of the case as it stands narrated in the statement (Ext. 2) of the prosecutrix Bijli Devi (P.W.3) was that while she had been to the river side in the evening of 10.10.1993 watching her catties. Catties grazing, at about 6 p.m., the appellant co-villager all of a sudden caught hold her from behind and pushed with his knees on her back by holding her shoulders, as a result of which she fell down on the ground and raised objection. She further narrated that the appellant climbed on her body, gagged her mouth with the help of his towel and after removing her Sari & Petticoat committed rape on her When she resisted, it is alleged that, he slapped her. After ejaculation...
Tag this Judgment!The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand Vs. Mota ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR202(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent at the instance of the State of Jharkhand is directed against the judgment dated 13th February, 2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 542 of 1994, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents (appellant herein) for payment of compensation to the respondents (writ petitioners) for the alleged demolition of the structure put by the writ petitioners on the reserve forest and also for carrying away their articles and belongings.2. The respondents filed the writ petition for the grant of compensation on the ground that the authorities of the respondents (appellants herein), in violation of all the norms and laws, demolished the dwellings of the writ petitioners and taken away with them all the articles with an intention to cause injury/loss to them.3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, considered the report of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum wherein it was reported t...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Lal Mahata and Manorma Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR522(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5239 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as against the present appellants on the ground that they are not entitled to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years as they have attained the age of 58 years prior to enhancement of age of superannuation.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The present appellants are the employees of Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dhanbad (in short 'Bank'). The Cooperative Bank is the wing of Department of Cooperative, Govt. of Jharkhand. The Jharkhand Government issued Government notification No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 enhancing the age of superannuation of Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. The said notification was considered in the meeting of Board of Directors of the Cooperative bank and a decision was taken in the Board's meeting dated 22.12.2004 f...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdhan Pathak Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR277(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing Office Order vide Memo No. 929 dated 9.6.1998 (Annexure 5) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar (respondent No. 5) by which petitioner was informed that he is going to be superannuated with effect from 31.1.1999 on the basis of his date of birth being 15.1.1941 as recorded in the service book.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended as follows. From the Cross List of Matriculation Examination (Annexure 1) and the Middle School Pass Certificate (Annexure 2), it will appear that the date of birth of the petitioner is '2.7.1946'. When he was appointed as Constable on 3.4.1964, he was 17 years 9 months 1 day old. His case is covered by the judgment dated 1.12.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4107 of 1997 Shiv Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. The seniority list prepared by the department was never circulated and, therefore, petitioner did not know about the mistake in the service book regarding date ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Ram and Krishna Deo Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR530(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners had claimed their regularisation on the ground that they worked for a long period under respondents No. 6 and 7 but were disengaged. Pursuant to the order passed on 5th August, 2002 in this writ petition, the authorities considered the matter and rejected the petitioners' claim by order dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure 21) which has been challenged by the petitioners by way of an amendment petition (I.A. No. 510 of 2003).2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were Home Guards and in view of the letter dated 9.1.1997 issued by the District Commandant (Annexure 7), petitioners should be regularised. He relied on the order dated 6.3.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 2168 with 2223 of 2001 in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey etc. He also submitted that the petitioners were public servants.3. Learned Counsel for the State relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR205(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 is directed against the judgment dated 9th September, 2003 passed in WP (C) No. 3697 of 2003. The petitioner-appellant challenged the order dated 28.6.2003 and 17.7.2003 passed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, whereby a decision was taken by the respondents to consider and decide all the applications for grant of Inter-State Carriage Permit. The applications were considered and finally permit was granted to respondent No. 3 - Pawan Kumar Kejriwal.3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the Transport Authorities have not followed the terms of the advertisement inasmuch as even the defective applications were considered. Learned Counsel submi...
Tag this Judgment!Ripley and Company Limited Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR401; [2007(4)JCR415(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner, a Ltd. Company, has called in question the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, denying the consideration to the petitioner for allotment of works of extraction and transfer of coal from Quary face of ashoka and Piperwar project by deploying surface miners, pay loaders and other allied equipments and transportation of transferred coal by contractor's tipping trucks to R M C/ Bachra/ K D H siding and Piperwar C P P/C H P siding, by not opening the Part-II tender of the petitioner. A further direction in the nature of mandamus is sought for, according consideration to the petitioner's tender for allotment of aforesaid works. Another prayer is made seeking restraint order for not allotting the works of contract, in question, in favour of respondents 4, 5 and 6, without considering the tender of the petitioner.2. It is relevant to briefly notice the factual background, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties. Respondent No. 3 issued Notice Inviting Ten...
Tag this Judgment!Unit Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR194(Jhr)]; (2007)IILLJ640Jhar
1. The learned Single Judge has passed an order dated 28.6.2000, wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the Registrar, Trade Unions, has no jurisdiction to decide the legality and propriety of any election and has no jurisdiction to direct for holding fresh election. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this appeal.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:Unit Prasad Singh, the appellant, was elected as General Secretary in the election of the office bearers of the Union held in October/2000. He was declared elected as General Secretary on 27.4.2001. The next election was held on 9.11.2003 and new sets of office bearers were elected. The appellant, having come to know that there were illegal practices committed during the course of election, protested by sending a letter dated 15.11.2003, intimating the Registrar, Trade Unions, that the elect ion has to be declared as invalid as there were illegal activities. By the order dated 29.11.2003, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »