Jharkhand Court May 2007 Judgments
Ram Prasad Sao and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR131(Jhr)]; (2008)ILLJ162Jhar
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have prayed] for quashing the order dated 26.11.19871 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 3584 of 1985 arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 245 of 1985, whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 406, IPC against the petitioners and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them vide aforesaid order.The primary ground taken in support of the prayer is that the order of cognizance as passed by the learned Court below is bad both on points of law as well as on facts due to the reason that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that even if taking the entire allegations in the complaint against the petitioners to be true, no offence under Section 406, IPC could be attracted. Another ground on which equal emphasis has been placed is that since the allegation refers to the alleged violation of the Employees Provident Fund Act and since the Act being a specia...
Tag this Judgment!Srmb Udyog Limited Through Its Marketing Manager Sri Sunil Kumar Vs. A ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar32; 2007(2)BLJR2208; [2007(3)JCR374(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2006 passed by the District Judge, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 3 of 2006 rejecting the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit along with an injunction petition in the court of the learned District Judge, Deoghar, inter alia, for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the design bearing No. 191744 and holds the copyright in the said design; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants etc, from in any way infringing with the said design.3. The plaintiff's case in short is that it got the said design registered on 4.4.2003 and was using the same. The plaintiff learnt in July, 2006 that defendant No. 1 is selling rod with the said x-rib design through defendant No. 2. The defendants have been infringing and passing of the said registered design by selling r...
Tag this Judgment!Employers in Relation to the Management of Lodna Colliery of Bharat Co ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2331; [2007(114)FLR946]; [2007(3)JCR333(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner-Management has prayed for quashing the Award dated 14.6.2002, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, at Dhanbad (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) in Reference Case No. 127 of 1995 (Annexure-3).2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication vide order dated 10.10.1995.Whether the action of the management of Lodna Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing S/Shri Nand Kishore Ram and Ram Lakhan Ram, Miner/Loader w.e.f. 19/22 Nov., 1990 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?3. The Tribunal held that the termination of the concerned workmen was illegal and was done without holding a regular departmental enquiry and therefore they are entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits. However, liberty was given to the Management to make fresh enquiry against the concerned workmen after giving them opportunity.4. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner-Management, submi...
Tag this Judgment!C. Subramaniam, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC306
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them pursuant to the order dated 16.02.1999 passed in C.P. Case No. 1170 of 1998, passed by Shri A. K. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. was taken against the petitioners with a direction that they should appear and face trial in the case.2. The main grounds in support of the prayer is that the learned court below has passed the order of cognizance without application of judicial mind and without considering the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective, and that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of law and perpetrate injustice as even on the basis of the entire allegations, no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. can be made out against any of th...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Yusuf and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC326
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Both the appellants were tried and convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court.2. The gist of charge, as framed against them is that on the night of 25/ 26th March, 1991, in furtherance of their common intention, the appellants committed murder of Amilan Nisha, wife of the appellant No. 1, in the house of the appellants within village Borobin, P.S. Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh.The case was registered on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant namely Md. Tasaur Ansari (PW9) who is the brother of the deceased, recorded by the SI of Police, Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, on 26.3.1991 at 15.30 hours.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased namely Amilan Nisha, was married to the appellant No. 1 on 25.5.1990. After her marriage, she went to her matrimonial house where she lived for two/three months whereafter her husband br...
Tag this Judgment!Avijit Ghosh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR378(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have invoked the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lohardaga vide C 2 Case No. 1 of 1999, including the order of cognizance dated 17.11.1999, passed by the learned Court below, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them besides cognizance of the offence under Section 4/21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act.2. The grounds in support of the prayer include, inter alia;(i) That the learned trial Court has passed the order of cognizance without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case including the allegations in the FIR and has failed to consider that no offence under Section 420, IPC or 409, IPC or 120B, IPC is made out at all against the petitioners and fu...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Bohra Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR353(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, including the order dated 29.2.1996 in TR Case No. 358 of 2003 (O.C.R. No. 10 of 1996) whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act has been taken against the petitioner.2. The primary ground advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in respect of his prayer is that the order of cognizance taken by the trial Court is devoid of merits and has been passed without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that the complaint petition essentially lacks specific details regarding the capacity of the petitioner vis-a-vis the Company i.e. Tirupati Engineering Private Limited and also regarding the place where the aforesaid company's mining operations are located which was allegedly inspected by ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Swarn Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1809; [2007(4)JCR106(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants-appellants is against the judgment of reversal.2. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 22 of 1979 for declaration of title over the suit property and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed by Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in terms of judgment and decree dated 13th September, 1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 02 of 1982 which was allowed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in terms of judgment and decree dated 12th June, 1990 and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, this Second Appeal by the defendants.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The suit property is tiled katcha house comprising of rooms and varanda etc. surrounded by boundary walls. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father from one Mohan Singh. Plaintiff's case was that thereafter the suit property was allotted to the father of the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. J.J. Irani and Three ors. Vs. Sri Shaligram Pathak and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR358(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings against them in Complaint Case No. C2-956 including the order of cognizance dated 7.6.1996 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the CLA Act) against the petitioners and directed them to face trial.2. The primary ground advanced in support of the prayer is that the order of cognizance is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the learned Court below has passed the order of cognizance without application of judicial mind.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.4. Before adverting to the grounds advanced by the petitioners, reference may be made to the facts of the case in brief:A notification was issued by the State Government as contained in letter dated 20.12.1991 prohibiting engagement of contract labourers In respect of the work of permanent...
Tag this Judgment!Somay Mardi and ors. Vs. Bikram Murmu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR112(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants-appellants is against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1990 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1985 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1985 passed by 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 9 of 1982 and thereby decreed the suit.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiffs tiled the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint which consists of various plots of khata No. 66 of Mauza Digha, P.S. Ghatshila, District Singhbhum comprising an area of 4.12 acres. The plaintiffs also sought a decree for declaration that the sale deed executed by Most. Budhni in favour of the defendants is void, illegal and inoperative. The suit property originally belonged to late Karu Santhal. Late Aina Santhalin wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »