Jharkhand Court September 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.
Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Sec ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR333
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Since the points involved in both the writ petitions are the same and similar, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions were taken up together and, as such, are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, a company having its registered office at Mumbai and works at Jamshedpur, (hereinafter called as TISCO for the sake of convenience) has filed this writ application for quashing of the notification, contained in memo No. 1048 dated 10/07/2004, issued by the. Government of Jharkhand, referring the dispute to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for adjudication in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The dispute referred is as under:Whether not to take back Sri K. Chandrashekhar Rao and 73 other workmen (list enclosed) of M/S TISCO Limited Jamshedpur in service by their own TISCO Management after their transfer to M/s Lafarge Indra Limited, is justified? If not what relief they are ...
Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ194Jhar
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the two demand notices, both dated July 19, 2006, issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation for recovery of its contribution for the period from December, 2002 to August, 2005 and further for the period September, 2005 to June, 2006, being amount of Rs. 10,36,590.00 and Rs. 3,73,462.00 respectively. It has been stated that the petitioner has already applied for exemption under the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the Employees State Insurance Act before the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, who is the competent authority. It has been further stated that for the earlier period the petitioner was given exemption from 1982 to 1996 and on the same ground, further exemption has been prayed. The respondents have not disputed the said fact. It has been stated that this Court, in similar circumstance and in the matter of the same petitioner, has pass...
Ravishwar Manjhi, Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR436(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. All the above named appellants were charged and tried for the offences under Section 302/149, 307/149/326/147/148/324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Revlshwar Manjhl and Jaleshwar Manjhi were convicted under Section 302/148 of the Indian Penal Code. Jaleshwar Manjhi appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Kala Chand Manjhi and Raghu Manjhi were convicted for the offence under Sections 326/148, IPC while appellants Santu Manjhl and Jma Kant Rajak were convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence of life Imprisonment was awarded to the appellants Ravishwar Manjhi and Jaleshwar Manjhl for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Jaleshwar Manjhi, Kalachand Manjhl and Raghu Manjhi were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and two years rigorous im...
Piru Some Besra and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR568(Jhr)]
1. All the appellants stand convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, seven years and three years respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trail No. 103 of 1999. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 21.9.1998, deceased Parang Hembrom along with his two sons, P.W.5 and P.W. 7, was ploughing land belonging to his wife (P.W.6) Mem Besra situated in Mauza- Pokherya, Manjhee tola, Police Station- Maheshpur, District- Pakur where all of a sudden, the appellants came there armed variously and started assaulting them. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was assaulted with lathi by appellant No. 1 Piru Some Besra on his head while other appellants assaulted P.W.5 and P.W.7. Further stated when the deceased fell down on the ground, appellant No. 1 caught hold of his he...
Ganga Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR565(Jhr)]
1. The sole appellant, Ganga Mahto stand convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life by judgment dated 28th August'2001 in Sessions Trial No. 406 of 1993 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant P.W. 6 Chhathu Mahto along with P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was bringing harvested Til crops for thrashing towards their Bari in the after noon of 11.11.1992 when in all six accused persons including the appellant surrounded them in Mauza Khudra Garmando, P.S. Sariya. The informant party had grown this crop in their land situated in plot No. 100, Khata No. 2 registered in the name of their mother and deceased Chhakan Mahto. As further stated the appellant along with others assaulted P.W. 3 Prayag Mahto son of the informant Chhathu Mahto on which they raised alarm. According to the informant the deceased Chhakan Mahto arrived at the spot and he was assaulted with tangi by ...
Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR382; 2007CriLJ1989; [2007(1)JCR481(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The appellant Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad was put on trial along with other accused namely, Qamar Alam, Shyam Kumar Sharma @ Lalia and Deepak Kumar Jaiswal to face charges not only under Sections 307, 326, 328 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter but also with aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 109, 201 and 343 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that accused persons in conspiracy with each other fraudulently and in deceitful manner removed the kidney of Nasir Ali, the informant (P.W.3). The trial court while referring the case of the other accused persons to the court at Bombay where the case instituted under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Transplantation of the Human Organs Act is pending, convicted the appellant under Sections 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and further for one year for the offence under Section 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code respec...
Serophina Besra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR242(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Harsh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Piprawal, learned Counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the State.2. The appellant was appointed as Primary teacher by an office order dated 8.2.2004 issued under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Godda, on a condition that in future if on verification it is found that the appellant has not received teachers training from recognized institution then her appointment may be cancelled and further that if any document submitted by her is found to be forged and fabricated then also her appointment would be liable to be cancelled and legal action may be taken against her.3. After about one and half year by issue of an order dated 18.8.2005, contained in Annexure-II, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda, terminated the service of the appellant on the ground, that on verification of the certificate submitted by her it was found...
Dharmadeo Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR616(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order impugned passed by Special Judge. C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 11 (a)/200 ID on 20.6.2006 whereby and where-under the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Dharmadeo Prasad under Section 205, Cr PC for dispensation of his personal appearance was rejected.2. Mr. Bimal Kumar, Sr. learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged about 80 years, completely bed ridden, against whom summon has been issued by the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or through his pleader at the first instance. But unfortunately, on account of his various ailments and over whelming medical reports in proof of his serious health condition, he preferred a petition under Section 205 Code of Criminal Procedure for his exemption from his personal appearance in the Court, and that he be represented through his counsel in the Court which was rejected. Advancing his a...
Smt. Saraswati Singh @ Saraswati Sinha and Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Brij S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar49; [2007(1)JCR208(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. These four appeals arise out of the Judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court In Partition Suit No. 153/1972. Two appeals, i.e. First Appeal No. 18 of 1999 (R) filed by Smt. Saraswati Singh (defendant No. 3 In the suit) and First Appeal No. 20 of 1999 (R) filed by Anil Kumar Singh (the defendant No. l In the suit) are against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 28.11.1998 passed by learned Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in the said suit whereas First Appeal No. 73 of 2001 filed by Smt. Saraswati Singh (defendant No. 3 in the suit) and First Appeal No. - 74 of 2001 filed by Anil Kumar Singh ( said defendant No. l) are against the final decree dated 26.07.2001 passed in the said Partition Suit No. 153 of 197.2.2. Since all the appeals are based on the same facts, evidences and material and the parties are also common, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.3. The original plaintiff Surendra Sinha had filed the said partitio...
NavIn Roy, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR120(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. In view of the common question of law and common basis for termination of the services of the petitioners, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. WP(S) No. 1881 of 2005.-Petitioner in this case was registered with the District Employment Exchange, Sahibganj. His name was recommended vide letter No. 630 dated 3rd October, 1986 to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sahibganj for appointment. An interview letter No. 595 dated 28th November, 1986 was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear for interview on 8th of December, 1986. Petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee comprising of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sahibganj as Chairman and two members Lei, the District Welfare Officer and the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Sahibganj. The Committee selected him in the Selection Committee meeting held on 8.12.1986. On being selected, he was appointed as Statistical Investigator (Snakhyaki Anveshak) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »