Jharkhand Court January 2007 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.
Dr. Ram Janam Singh and ors. Vs. Bhaiya Suresh Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR544(Jhr)]
1. This Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 6th August, 1992 passed in F.A. No. 31 of 1980 (R) whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Petition Suit No. 70 of 1970.2. The plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit for partition of the suit land situated at Mauza Basaha. The suit land was recorded in the name of four brothers, namely, Rajnath Singh, Goberdhan Singh, Dipan Singh and Sheoratan Singh. For the sake of convenience, Rajnath Singh and Dipnarain Singh, the two brothers, were living separately and Sheonarain Singh and Gobardhan Singh were also living separately. It was specific case of the plaintiffs-respondents that the brothers were living separately for the sake of convenience and no partition by metes and bounds took place among them. The defendants-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement stating that the suit property was partitioned by metes and bounds and all t...
Bachoo Ram Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1028; [2007(2)JCR84(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Vide order dated 09th March, 2005, a direction was issued to the Respondents to pay the admitted retiral dues alongwith interest. It was further observed that if any further amount is found payable, then appropriate order shall be passed for payment of admitted retiral dues together with interest. It has been reported by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that all retiral dues have been paid except the interest on the retiral dues, from the date of retirement till the date of payment.2. Mr. R. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Board, submitted that interest on G.P.F. is payable only up to six months after the month in which such amount became payable. He has relied upon Rule 14(4) of the Bihar G.P.F. Rules, 1938, which reads as under:14 (4) In addition to any amount to be paid under Rules 29, 30, or 31, interest thereon upto the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made, or upto the end of the sixth month after the mo...
Gautam Verma and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Basanti Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC248; 2007(2)BLJR1989; [2007(3)JCR39(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners herein for quashment of the order impugned dated 15.12.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M. Dumka in P.C.R. No. 633 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (Herein after referred as N.I. Act) and also for quashment of the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners.2. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2. Basanti Devi brought about a complaint case vide P.C.R. No. 633 of 2005 stating interalia that her husband was working as Mozdoor in Ishika Cold Storage owned and possessed by the petitioner No. 1 Gautam Verma and her husband was killed on 24.9.2005. Subsequently dead body of her husband was thrown in a ditch near Telia Bandh and in this connection Saraiya Hat Police Station Case No. ...
Zeyaul Haque and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR43(Jhr)]
Dilip Kumar Sinha, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of their conviction dated 16.7.1999 and order of sentence dated 19.7.1999 passed by Shri R.K. Dubey, 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions trial No. 119/1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant No. 1 Zeyaul Haque was convicted under Part II of Section 304, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years whereas the appellant No. 2 Mobarak Hussain was convicted under Section 304 -(II) /34, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years. Mobarak Hussain appellant No. 2 was further convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC.and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences against Mobarak Hussain were directed to run concurrently.2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellants were prosecuted on the statement of the informant Habib Ansari, recorded in the night of 13.4.1989 at the Kanke Hospital with respect to ...
Devi B. Parikh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR625(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, Devi B. Parikh has preferred this Criminal Revision application against the order impugned dated 6.5.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VII, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 14 of 2004 arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 229 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for her discharge was rejected.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant, Devgam Ram delivered his statement before Bistupur Police at M.G.M. Hospital, Emergency Ward at bed No. 6 on 18.11.2000 at about 17.45 hours that on 17.11.2000 he had been to Mihtila Motors Ltd. to attend his duty where he was assigned work to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- of the company. He took the same amount and came to Adityapur Branch of Punjab National Bank where he deposited Rs. 52,000/- and with the remaining amount he came to Bistupur Branch of certain bank for deposit. He further narrated that while he was checking the voucher slips at about 12.30 noon at the ...
Kanhai Dhibar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR808; [2007(4)JCR635(Jhr)]
1. The present appeal arises against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th April 2001 and 21st April, 2001 respectively passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 2000 whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of three years for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry. Prohibition Act. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that informant's sister Hemlata Dhibar was married with the present appellant...
Atibir Hi-tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR840; [2007(1)JCR598(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M/s. Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.3.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Giridih Circle, Giridih, whereby petitioner's application elated 27.1.2006 for cancellation of registration certificate issued under Rule 4 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 and for refund of the amount realized by way of electricity duty has been rejected and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to make payment of electricity duty together with surcharge.2. The petitioner is an industry having Induction Furnace and Rolling Mill at Mohanpur in Giridih said to have been set up in 1998. The petitioner purchases electricity from Damodar Valley Corporation for the purposes of its industry under the agreement executed between the Damodar Valley Corporation being the licensee and the petitioner company. The petitioner-company started its commerci...
Most. Parwati Devi Vs. Giriraj Prasad Agarwal and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR124(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation.3. The young boy of 18 years died in the year 1992 out of the Motor Vehicle Accident. The old father filed the claim case. During the pendency of the case, father died and mother was substituted as a claimant. Unfortunately the matter was lingered and ultimately Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation.4. Even after following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court that in the matter of assessment of compensation where the claimants are parents, the age of parents shall be taken into consideration the compensation amount cannot and shall not be less than a sum of Rs. 1 lakh.5 We are, therefore, of the view that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of compensation shall be just and reasonable. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal.This appeal is accordingly allowed....
H.N. Pareek and Co., Through One of Its Partners Sri H.N. Pareek Vs. S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR72(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent Nos. 2-4 to grant the petitioner an independent and separate code number under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and also for quashing the order dated 17.10.2006 (An-nexure-7) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the employees' contribution to the tune of Rs. 31,92,750.00 for the period from November 2004. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the State Government to consider the petitioner's claim for exemption from application of the provisions of the Act and to pass appropriate order under the provisions of the said Act.2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered contractor and has been running a canteen in the premises of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. at Jamshedpur. The provisions of the said Act have been made applicable w.e.f. 1.11.2004. On coming to know about the applicability...
Birendra Narayan and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR76(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. As prayed Mr. Rajiv Sharma is permitted to delete the name of respondent No. 5.2. The petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition challenging the cancellation of their settlements with regard to two ponds for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006. The petitioners' case is that on 15.7.2004 the said settlement was cancelled without any opportunity to show cause. It is further submitted that the petitioners have suffered huge loss due to such arbitrary action of the respondents.3. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that after settlement was made, a representation was received from the respondent Nos 6 and 7, who belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, for settling the said ponds in their favour and on such representation a committee took a decision to settle the same with respondent Nos. 6 and 7 after cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the settlements were cancelled and the said ponds were settled in favour of respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »