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.
Kishori Ram Gadia Vs. Mostt. Rashidan Bibi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC919; 2008ACJ34
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th July, 2005 passed by VI Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Godda in Title Claim Case No. 6 of 1998/18 of 2003, whereby compensation amount of Rs. 1,67,900 has been awarded for the death of the deceased Rushtam Ali, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident and held that owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation but the amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company and the same shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The widow, who is claimant filed application for the grant of compensation on account of death of her husband Rushtam Ali in motor vehicle accident caused by a truck bearing registration No. BRJ No. 4797. The claimant's case was that the deceased boarded the aforesaid truck at Bankamor for going to Hirapur. The truck wa...
Pancham Bhuiyan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR212(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both the appeals, arising out of same judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.2.2001 and 22.2.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 254/99, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held all the appellants guilty under Sections, 302, 376(2)(g), 201, 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302 IPC, 12 years RI under Section 376(2)(g) and 5 years RI under Section 201 IPC. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The factual matrix leading to these appeals are that in the night of 1.9.11.98 Munni Devi, wife of the informant Pradeop Sao, Munni Devi was not found in the house when he returned home at about 10.45 PM. The informant tried to search her out but she could not be found. According to the informant, he went in search of his wife al...
Arun Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1355; [2007(4)JCR449(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. While serving as Registrar, Health and Assistant Director (Administration), petitioner was placed under suspension vide Memo No. 106 (5) dated 25th January, 2002 on the basis of certain allegations. Suspension was followed by service of charge sheet under Memo No. 692 (5) dated 10th April, 2002 and simultaneously one Dr. D.K. Raman, Deputy Director (Administration) was appointed as the Conducting Officer. Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. As many as 3 charges were framed against him. While enquiry was being conducted, suspension of the petitioner came to be revoked vide Office Order contained in Memo No. 999 (5) dated 17th June, 2002. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report after conducting departmental proceedings vide Memo No. 235 dated 16th September, 2002. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the Officer from all the three charges for which enquiry was conducted. It is further alleged that the file was placed before the Hon'ble Mini...
Om Prakash Vs. Central Pollution Control Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR63(Jhr)]
ORDER1. An affidavit has been filed by the Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, stating therein that inspection has again been done and analysis has also been made, on the .basis of that personal hearing has been given and then the Member Secretary issued notice dated 3.1.2007 pointing out various defects and directing the Unit to comply with the directions within the stipulated time.2. Mr, Gadodia, Senior Counsel appearing for the B.T.P.S., would submit that 45 days have already been given and within the said period, the unit will take all steps to comply with the directions and report the same before this Court to enable this Court to pass further orders. Accordingly, this statement is recorded.3. With regard to B.T.P.S., 45 days, as mentioned in the notice dated 3.1.2007, have been given with reference to the compliance of those directions and as such, post this case under the same heading on 19.2.2007 for further orders.4 In the meantime, B.T.P.S. will file supplementary affi...
Tileshwar Sahu Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1030; [2007(3)JCR178(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is made to the order, issued under Memo No. 5299 dated 3rd November, 2006, removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') with immediate effect. Operation of the impugned notification was stayed by this Court vide interlocutory order dated 9th November, 2006. On completion of the pleadings and keeping in view the urgency involved, this matter was heard for final disposal. It may be useful to briefly notice the factual background, leading to filing of the present writ petition. After creation of the separate State of Jharkhand, State Pollution Control Board was constituted for the first time on 22nd January, 2003 with one Thakur Balmukund Nath Sahdeo as its first Chairman. His appointment as Chairman came to be challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1624 of 2002. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the appointment of the Chairman vide its judgm...
Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless, Through Its Secretary, Thakur ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR443(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner is an Association of Jharkhand Police, Wireless Officers. This petition is being filed in respect to Order dated 25th July, 2005, issued under Memo No. 1304 RO order No. 312/005 to the extent, it has allowed the benefits of A.C.P. Scheme from the date of passing of Training. The State Government formulated Assured Career Progression Scheme in respect to its employees, whereunder an employee is entitled to be placed in higher pay-scale on completion of 12 years and 24 years of Service during his entire Service Career. In the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation, the benefit was allowed on completion of 12/24 years or 09.08.1999, whichever to later, where at the relevant time, an employer is unable to seek regular promotion. The benefit under the Scheme is available to such of the employees, who are otherwise eligible for regular promotion under the Rules, which, inter alia, also includes passing of the requisite departmental examination wherever prescribed....
Bharat Nishad and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR74(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26th August, 2006, whereby the Certificate Officer has illegally issued distress warrant against the petitioners without determining the objection filed by them under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act').2. It has been stated that after receipt of notice under Section 7 of the Act served on the petitioners, they appeared and filed their objection under Section 9 of the Act. The Certificate Officer has not considered the said objection and' not passed any order.3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Certificate Officer cannot take any coercive action without determining the petitioners' objection and as such, the order issuing distress warrant against the petitioners is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel, relying upon the decisions passed by this Court in the c...
Kumar Virendra Balajee Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR9(Jhr)]
ORDERI.A. No. 9 of 20071. I.A. No. 9 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal. Perused the application. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application is, thus, allowed.LPA No. 410 of 2006;2. In the instant appeal, the appellant is seeking for compassionate appointment. The appellant, son of the deceased employee, filed an application before the department on 30.1.1997 and the same was forwarded by Respondent No. 3 on 31.1.1997 and the same was forwarded by Respondent No. 3 on 31.1.1997. There is no dispute about the fact that the death of the deceased occurred on 19.9.1992. Now the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on 6.8.2002 mainly on the ground that the application has been filed beyond five years the stipulated period. This order of rejection was challenged before the learned Single Judge. Refusing to go into the question regarding...
Vivek Raisurana and ors. Vs. Smt. Bhrawali Devi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR569(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application filed by the defendants-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-Ill, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 10 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the petitioners to recall the order dated 3.6.2005 has been rejected.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No. 10 of 2003 for a decree of eviction of the defendants from the building premises. The defendants-petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement. On 4.3.2004, the plaintiff filed application under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short 'BBC Act') for a direction to the defendants-petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent allegedly due for the month July, 2002 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month as also the current rent. The petitioners filed, rejoinder to the said petition and the Court below by order dated 5.7.2...
Fredric Charles Smith Vs. Alois Barla
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR490(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant No. 2--petitioner challenging the judgment xand order dated 8.6.2006 passed by District Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2005 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Mun-sif, Chaibasa in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2003 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC for setting aside exparte decree passed in Title Suit No. 2 of 1997.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1997 for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the suit land after holding that the Municipal Survey Settlement Entry in respect of the suit land in the name of the defendant-petitioner finally published in 1973 is wrong and erroneous and the same ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »