Jharkhand Court November 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.
Ashok Kumar Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR94(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 119 dated 29.6.04 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Dhalbhum-cum-Licensing Authority, Jamshedpur whereby the petitioner's License No. 3/86-Patamda issued to him for carrying on the retail trading business under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 27.10.05 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18/04-05 whereby the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed against the order of the Licensing Authority. The petitioner has also prayed for restoration of the agreement and original License No. 3/86-Patamda in his favour.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was carrying on the retail business under the Public Distribution System under License No. 3/86-Patamda in the Village-Bamni, P.S. Patamda, District-East S...
Sri B. Sri Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1179]; [2008(2)JCR187(Jhr)]; 2008(II)KarLJ935
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr PC. praying for quashing the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. 1621 of 2005. whereby cognizance of the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act was taken and summons were ordered to be issued against the petitioners directing them to appear and face trial for the said offence.2. The case was registered before the Court below on the basis of a petition of complaint dated 6.5.2005 filed by the Inspector of Factories on 7.5.2005. The complainant has sought to prosecute the petitioners for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 on the accusation that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being the occupier and manager respectively of the factory, namely, M/s. S.T.P. Limited, carrying out the work of Tar Distillation, and the contractor, namely, petitioner No. 3 had violated Rule 95(xii) and Rule 55-A(2) of...
Hara Mohan Pradhan Vs. Lachu Gope and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR214(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In the CMP, the petitioner has prayed for restoration of second appeal No. 444 of 2003 which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order within the prescribed period. Since there was delay of 264 days in filing the CMP, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being IA No. 2218 of 2006 has been filed praying for condonation of delay.2. It has been stated that by order dated 17.8.2004, one week's time was granted for removing the defects and two weeks' time was granted for filing Deficit Court-fee Stamp. It has been stated that within the prescribed period, defects were removed, but the petitioner's counsel was under Impression that for filing Deficit Court-fee Stamp. four weeks' time was granted. Under that bona fide impression, Deficit Court-fee Stamp was filed within four weeks but it was beyond the prescribed period. Subsequently, on 7.5.2005, when the registry informed about dismissal of the second appeal for non-compliance of the...
Binod Kumar Das and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR49]; [2008(1)JCR601(Jhr)]; (2008)IILLJ692Jhar
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report of Bistupur P.S case No. 49 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. case No. 409 of 2006 whereby the case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioners and others.3. Before adverting to contention raised on behalf of the petitioners the facts of the case needs to be noted which are as follows:It appears that one Jadunath Soren lodged first information report on 21.2.2006 stating therein that one M/s H.K. Singori and Company was assigned a job by the Management of TISCO for cleaning the Bins in the Sinter Plant area and that he as well as other two persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Dhal and Sukhdeo Karkamar being employees of the said M/s H.K. Singori and Company were asked to clean the Bins and while they were cleanin...
Amulya Ratan Pramanik Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR222(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of several years, his amount of GPF has not been duly paid. The part amount was paid in two instalments in the year 2003. but the amount was calculated without considering the contribution made by the petitioner from 1962-63 to 1975-76. The respondents have also not properly calculated the statutory interest payable to the petitioner on the delayed payment of the amount of GPF. The petitioner has stated that though he had not taken any advance during his service tenure, the statement served on him indicates four such advances, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no basis for showing such advances as the same were never taken by the petitioner.2. Mrs. I, Sen Chaudhary, learned SC-III, on the other hand, disputed the petitioner's claim and submitted that the record shows that the petitioner had taken four advances and the amount has been rightly adjusted towards the said advanc...
Arvind Techno Engineers Limited Through Manoj Kumar Vs. the State of B ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR484(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. The petitioners has challenged the order dated 23.9.1997 passed accepted Nos. 4 of 1997 and 5 of 1997 by which the appeals were partly accepted by exempting payment of tax for vehicles bearing registration No. BPS 8123 and BPH 8220 for six months against the claim of the petitioner for three years from 1.5.1993 to 31.3.1996. The petitioners has also challenged the orders dated 18.7.1996 passed in Case Nos. 11 of 1996 and 13 of 1996, whereby the exemption claimed was rejected for the entire period.2. Mr. Saurav Arun, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner surrendered eleven vehicles including the said vehicles in the months of March and April, 1993 which was accepted by the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur vide his Letter No. 1035 dated 14.5.1993 (Annexure 1), but subsequently the said acceptance of surrender was withdrawn on the purported ground that in a surprise checking done some time in the year 1995, the said vehicles were not...
Bhuneshwar Oraon and ors. Vs. Randasi Oraon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR223(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this I.A., the appellants-applicants have prayed for stay of further proceeding of P.S. No. 28 of 1999. It has been stated that the second appeal arising out of partition suit has been admitted by order dated 1.8.2006, framing substantial questions of law. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-respondents have been proceeding with the process of preparation of final decree. The respondents' Pleader Commissioner was appointed in order to disturb the peaceful possession of the appellants. The Pleader Commissioner now submitted report and some of the lands/properties, which were in exclusive possession of the appellants since long, have been allotted to the respondents giving rise to another dispute. It has been stated that if the process of preparation of final decree is not stayed the appellants shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury and there are chances of further litigation.2. The respondents have appeared in this appeal throu...
Ranthu Oraon and ors. Vs. Hari Oraon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR96(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. The defendants are the appellants/plaintiffs.2. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Gumla, in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1999, whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Gumla in Title Suit No. 13 of 1994.3. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1994, praying relief for declaration that they have got right title and interest over the suit land and that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 18 are the nearest agents of Late Temba Oraon.4. The subject matter of the suit land is the lands of R.S. Kaimi Khata No. 28, Bhuihari lands of R.S. Khata No. 105 recorded under R.S. Khewat No. 6 and the purchased lands of Khata No. 94 recorded under R.S. Khewat No. 4/6 of village Beti, P.S. Ghaghra, district Gumla.5. Plaintiffs case is that the said R.S. Khata No. 28 was recorded in the names of Temba Oraon, Situ...
Deo Sharan Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR575(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The petitioner, who is an employee of the State Government in the department of Agriculture, has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 30.1 2. 2006, by which several employees including the petitioner were transferred from one place to another. The, name of the petitioner finds at serial No. 6 and he has been transferred from Gumla to Garhwa by the said order. The petitioner has challenged the said order of transfer on the ground that he was earlier also transferred from Simdega to Gumla and within a period of six months he has again been transferred from Gumla to Garhwa.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in course of arguments drawn my attention to the policy decision as contained in Annexure-2 dated 17th March 1978 issued by the State of Bihar and Annexure- 3 dated 4th June 1994 in which is has been stated that generally the employees of grade III and grade IV should not be transferred from one pl...
Balku Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1426; [2008(2)JCR193(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the advertisement notice issued by the Respondent- Marketing Board (Annexure-12), inviting open bid auction for settlement of various Hats/Bazars for collecting market fee, which included Bero Bazar. It has been claimed that the notice with respect to settlement of Bero Hat/Bazar is arbitrary and illegal in view of Letter No. 206 dated 8th March, 2007 (Annexure-8) as the petitioners are entitled for extension of their settlement for another two terms of the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09, similarly, like Itki, Itki Station, Mander, Kurgi and Chutupalu hats. Petitioners have also prayed for direction on the respondents to consider and pass appropriate order on their representations for extension of period of settlement of Bero Bazar for further two financial years till 2008-09.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the settlement of the Market, in question, was made in favour of the pri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »