Jharkhand Court April 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.
Munshi Ram and ors. Vs. Tapsi Ram and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR331(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This, second appeal by the defendants-appellants is against the judgment of reversal. Suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents being Partition Suit No. 58 of 1982 for decree of partition was dismissed by the trial Court, but the same was allowed in appeal by the appellate Court in title Appeal No. 35 of 1985.2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is Tapsi Ram and plaintiff No. 2 is his wife Agnijot Devi. In the said suit, plaintiff No. 1 claiming to be a co-sharer, sought for partition in respect of his share in the suit property, whereas in the said suit plaintiff No. 2 claimed to have right, title and interest in respect of the portion of the property which she alleged to have purchased from one of the co-sharers defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiffs, there had never been partition among the heirs of Dukhbhajan Kahar and the parties are still joint. Plaintiff No. 1 claimed 1/9th share in the suit property. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written stat...
Silla Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2336; [2007(4)JCR651(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay and D.P. Singh, J.J1. The sole appellant Silla Mahto has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.5.1996 and 15.5.1996 respectively passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 382 of 1985 whereby and whereunder the appellant stand convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 16.6.1985 the informant Gyatri Kumari was going along with her mother Mangi Devi to local Hat. Further stated on the way to Manahatu Hat. Marsa Mundain wife of late Dudha Munda joined them for Hat. However when they reached near the hat the appellant along with Etwa Munda surrounded Marsa Mundain and asked why she has planted paddy in their field. Further stated they started assaulting the said Marsa Mundain respectively with long and short tangi in their hands on which her mother Mangi Devi raised alarm. Thereafter Etwa Munda a...
Tulas Kuer and ors. Vs. Parsuram Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR280(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the defendants-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1988 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 73/78 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.6.78 passed by Additional Munsif, Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 215/68.2. Plaintiff-respondents filed Title Suit No. 215/68 against the defendants for declaration that they are raiyats of the suit land and entitled to recover possession and also mesne profits. Plaintiffs' case is that the vendors of the plaintiffs and the defendants are descendants of one Jainath Singh who had 3 sons, namely, Ramlal Singh, Sundar Singh and Shyam Narain Singh. Ramlal Singh had three sons, namely, Damodar Singh, Bhagirath Singh and Jaisar Singh. Sundar Singh had one son Lochan Singh and Shyam Narain Singh had two sons Adhin Singh who died issue-less and Halkhori Singh. Plaintiffs' further case was that Jainath Singh had held Milkiat...
Smt. Sadhna Gupta and Sri Kanhai Lal Gupta Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Jhar96; 2007(2)BLJR1830; I(2008)DMC154; [2007(3)JCR38(Jhr)]
1. Heard.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 104/2006 whereby he has rejected the application filed by both the appellants under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent of both the husband and the wife.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.1.1988 at Sidgora, Jamshedpur. They lived together as husband and wife for a few months and, thereafter, they started living separately due to dispute and differences between them. Their case is that no child was born from their wedlock and despite efforts made for amicable settlement, the same failed and ultimately they decided to dissolve their marital relationship by mutual consent. For that they filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which has been rejected by the court below by passing the impugned order on the ground, inter alia, that there ...
The National Insurance Company Limited, Sakchi Branch Vs. Ram Chandra ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1452; 2007(2)BLJR2205; [2007(3)JCR221(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal and D.K.Sinha, JJ.1. In this appeal notices were issued to the claimants-respondents and the owner of the vehicle as respondent No. 9. The claimants have appeared but in spite of notice respondent No. 9 owner of the vehicle did not appear. This Court after exhausting all the procedure for service of notices by registered post as also by ordinary process, the notice was served by publication in the newspaper. It has been specifically mentioned in the notice published in the newspaper that in the event of failure of the respondent No. 9 to appear in the appeal, the same shall be disposed of ex parte. Hence we are disposing of the appeal after hearing the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the respondents-claimants.2. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th March, 2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal at Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 14 of 1997 wh...
Abhay Singh Surana Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR220(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.3.1984 passed by respondent No. 5 in Case No. 344 of 1979-80 directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 4,92,000/- in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 or to provide similar land in the vicinity of the land in question or for restoring the land in question; and also the order dated 6.1.1999 passed by respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 11 of 1984-85 confirming the said order; and also the order dated 10.6.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Revision No. 62 of 1999 confirming the said order.2. Respondents No. 6 and 7 filed an application under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') before respondent No. 5 for restoration of the land in question which was registered as Case No. 344 of 1979-80. Respondent No. 5 by order dated 6.3.1984 directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 4,92,000/- through Court or provide similar land in the vicinity or to restore the land. Not being ...
Rohan Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR52(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Second Appeal has been filed by one of the plaintiffs impleading other plaintiffs as respondents along with defendants.2. Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 68 of 1980 against the defendant-State of Bihar for declaration that they have acquired indefeasible right over the suit property and the defendants have no right to include it within the forest demarcation area. The suit was dismissed by trial Court. Plaintiff then preferred Title Appeal being T.A. No. 14/1985 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The said appeal was heard and dismissed by 1st Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh in terms of judgment and decree dated 22.1.1985. Aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts, one of the plaintiffs filed this appeal.3. By order dated 8.1.1991 this appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:(i) Whether the finding of possession can be interpreted as a question of law in second appea...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kailash Ram and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ91
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent.In spite of all steps taken for service of notice on the owner of the vehicle (Metador) including publication of notice in the newspaper, the respondent-owner has not appeared in this appeal. The Insurance Company in the instant appeal assailed the impugned judgment and award dated 12.8.2004 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 144 of 1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded for the serious injuries leading to permanent disablement caused lo the claimant in a motor vehicle accident.The facts of the case are that on 22.4.1991, the claimant was travelling by a Metador bearing registration No. BR-13L-8551 and was going to Hazaribagh. On the way, the Metador collided with a truck which was allegedly being driven in a very rash and negligent manner. The claimant sustained grievous injury and he became permanent disabled. The cla...
Hari Ram Patar Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR315(Jhr)]
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of his conviction and sentence whereby for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.1994 and 26.02.1994 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T, Case No. 132/25 of 1991-91.2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant Sagar Patar (P.W.-4) lodged sF.I.R. on 11.06.1990 alleging therein that his father-in-law Mangla Patar (P.W.- 3), resident of village - Banki had no issue except the informant's wife and therefore, the informant's son Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) used to look after the lands and...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Umesh Mehta and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR332(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent has been filed by the respondent-State against the judgment dated 7.8.2006 passed by learned single Judge in WPS No. 2988 of 2004 whereby the petition was allowed with a direction to the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) to release the monetary benefits to the petitioners with effect from the date, the petitioners/respondents were made in-charge Executive Engineer in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6167 of 1992 and CWJC No. 596 of 1999{R) decided on 22.1.2001.2. Respondents/petitioners filed WPS No. 2988 of 2004 seeking direction upon the appellant-State to grant benefit of promotion from the date they were made in-charge Executive Engineer. Petitioners case was that while working as Assistant Engineer, they were made In-charge with effect from 30.6.1998, where as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were made in-charge with effect from December 1999, Subsequently, petitioners were granted promotion to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »