Jharkhand Court March 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.
Birbal Ram Arya and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1620
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of Sri P.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, and also order of cognizance dated 4.3.2002 whereby cognizance of offences under Section 468/420/120B IPC has been taken against the petitioners in complaint case No. 901 of 2001.Primary grounds advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that dispute relating to the joint ancestral properties between the petitioners and the complainant No. 2, who are cousins, is purely of civil nature and even on reading the entire allegations in the complaint petition filed by complainant, no criminal offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners and therefore the continuance of the proceedings against them is misuse of the process of the court.2. Facts of the case constituting the background may be mentioned briefly as follows:3. The case against the petitioners was registered on the basis of a comp...
Arun Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-cum-man ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1350; [2007(2)JCR256(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the advance notice dated 2.6.2005 informing him that he will superannuate on 29.12.2005. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth on the basis of the school leaving certificate and for consequential benefits.2. The question is whether the petitioner can be allowed to raise dispute about his date of birth and reopen the matter at the fag end of his service?3. According to the petitioner, he learnt for the first time in September 2004 that his date of birth has been recorded incorrectly in his service record, when computerised pay slip was issued, showing his date of birth as on '29.12.1945'. As, according to his school leaving certificate, it is '5.2.1950', he raised a dispute but he was made to retire with effect from 31.12.2005.4. It has been categorically denied by the respondents that petitioner produced any certificate in proof of his date of birth at the time of his appointment on 29...
State of Bihar Vs. Chinibas Mahto and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR209(Jhr)]
1. Heard the counsel for the parties on the supplementary affidavit dated 2.3.2007 filed by the respondent-Steel Authority of India (in short SAIL).2. These two first appeals along with several other appeals have been filed by the appellant - State challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge in several Reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act).3. This Court, took judicial notice of the fact that the lands of poor villagers were acquired by the State for the Bokaro Steel Plant in the year, 1960-61 and, thereafter, several awards were prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer and Land Acquisition Judge determining compensation but the claimants could not get compensation till date.4. It appears that the land losers, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, moved applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Pursuant to that the Land Acquisition Judge, sometimes in 1990, passed judgment and a...
Dr. Prakash Amrut Mody and B.K. Sharma Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1305; 2007CriLJ3556
1. Heard the parties.The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 373 of 2003. The petitioners are cited as accused and are facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 469, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, besides offence under Section 17 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. By the order impugned, the learned court below had refused to extend protection to the petitioners under Section 205 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioners had filed their application for exemption of personal appearance in this cast: under Section 205 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they being employed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Executive Director of Pharmaceutical Company, namely, M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd., they have been made accused in this case for alleged acts, which they have not committed, since they being high officials of the ...
Ram Prasad Sao and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-04-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR887]
Permod Kohli, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 3rd August, 1989, passed by respondent No. 2, the revisional authority, in Land Ceiling Revision No. 151 of 1989, setting aside the judgments and orders, passed by its sub-ordinate authorities, and ordered delivery of possession of the property, in question, in favour of Indradeo Sao, respondent No. 5 herein.2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present writ application, are that the petitioners herein purchased a piece of land, measuring 33 Decimals (8 Kattha and 17 Dhurs), comprising of Survey Plot No. 935, Khata No. 113 of Village Chiraungia, P.S.- Garhwa in the then district of Palamau (now Garhwa) vide a registered sale deed dated 16th February, 1985 from respondent No. 6, Nathuni Sao, for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. It is alleged that this land was purchased for residential purpose. Petitioners also came into possession over the land, in question, on execution of the sale deed. Respondent N...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mariam Minz and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-04-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ357; [2007(3)JCR22(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Alok Lal learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-claimant. Inspite of service of notice other respondents who are the owner of the vehicle having not appeared.2. The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla in M.J.C. No. 37 of 1998 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- by way of compensation and directed the appellant-Insurance Company for payment of the said amount.3. The claimant-respondent No. 1 is the mother of the deceased. The case of the claimant is that on 7.6.1998 her son Jaipal Minz was traveling in a tractor and going to Church. It was alleged that tractor was being driven very rashly and negligently, as a result of which it overturned. The deceased sustained injury and ultimately died.4. On receipt of notice, owner of the tractor neither appeared nor filed an...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Md. Shamshad Ansari
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR285]; [2007(2)JCR262(Jhr)]; (2008)ILLJ108Jhar
Permod Kohli, J.1. Correctness and validity of the order dated 4th April, 2006 passed in W.P.(L) No. 6058 of 2005 is under challenge in this appeal, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, challenging the validity of the order of the Labour Court dated 22nd June, 2005 in M.J. Case No. 6 of 2002, has been dismissed, upholding the order of the Labour Court.2. It is useful to briefly notice the facts, giving rise to the present appeal. Respondent herein was an employee of the appellant-company having been appointed on 6th October, 1980. He was dismissed from service on the basis of charge of absent from duties vide order dated 25th September, 1982. The respondent-workman raised industrial dispute and a reference was made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). This reference was registered as Reference Case No. 3 of 1995. The Labour Court after holding enquiry...
Bharat Caterers Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2343; [2007(115)FLR827]; [2007(4)JCR344(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.A. No. 452 of 20071. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed or addition of prayer in the writ petition for quashing the order dated 2nd/7th February, 2007, containing a demand notice, issued under Section 45A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 (contained in Annexure-14) during the pendency of the writ petition.2. It has been stated that the petitioner has assailed the show cause notice against the said demand and, thereafter, the impugned order dated 2nd/7th February, 2007 has been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, which is based on the same facts and circumstances. Learned Counsel submitted that the amendment prayed for is intended to bring on record and add the subsequent event in the same matter and in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding.3. Mr. S.N. Das, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, does not dispute the said contention of the petitioner. In view thereof and also to prevent multiplicity of cases, the...
Ramjee Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Shyam Sundar Prasad Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1284; [2007(2)JCR257(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum in misc. case No. 734 of 2004 whereby a receiver was appointed under the provisions of Section 146 Cr. PC with respect to the disputed premises. It is contended that the impugned order is totally illegal and against the materials on record and without application of judicial mind and is fit to be quashed.2. The facts of the case in brief is that on the basis of an application filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, the learned Magistrate initiated proceeding under Section 144 Cr. PC in misc. case No. 734 of 2004 against the present petitioner as second party. The opposite party No. 2 as the first party had claimed possession over the disputed premises described by him as the premises of Swami Satyanand Saras...
Sujeet Nishad and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR273(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 11.2.2005 passed in CP Case No. 1495 of 2004 for offences under Sections 498A, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, and also for quashing the entire proceedings in respect of the above mentioned case.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, is that Manisha Devi, opposite party No. 3/ complainant, had filed a complaint before the CJM, Dhanbad which was registered as CP No. 1495 of 2004. The petitioner No. 1 happens to be the husband of the opposite party No. 3 whereas petitioner No. 2 happens to be a niece of the petitioner No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint that her marriage with the petitioner No, 1 was solemnized on 21.5.2004 according to Hindu rites and customs and a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was given besides gold ornaments, utensils and clothes was given by her parents at the time of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »