Jharkhand Court May 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.
Rup Chand Mahto Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-09-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR508(Jhr)]
1. Sole appellant Rup Chand Mahto stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/210 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1995, 23 of 1995. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 17.8.1994 informant Kamal Prasad was working in his field when he heard alarms raised by deceased Rameshwar Mahto from his Bart. The informant rushed to the Bari of the deceased to find that the appellant was trying to push the deceased within the earth having caused injuries on his neck and chest. The informant tried to catch hold of the appellant, but he managed to flee away with bloodstained Tangi towards forest. The incident was seen by one Raj Pokhraj Prasad also. According to h'm, this incident took pla...
Rina Devi and ors. Vs. the Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR438(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal by the claimants-appellants is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 13 of 2003 to the tune of Rs. 1,67,000/- together with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application which is at the lower side.3. The brief fact of the case is that while Kameshwar Mahto was travelling on a motor cycle with pillion rider, a truck bearing registration No. BR 20-G/0086 dashed the said motor cycle resulting in spot death of Kameshwar Mahto on 11.2.2002.4. The appellants-claimants are the widow, minor son and parents of the deceased.5. The main contention of the appellants are that Kameshwar Mahto was 30 years old at the time of his death in such motor accident and was earning Rs. 3000/-per month from agriculture from his land and was maintaing his family. But since no income certificate of the deceased was brought o...
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shail Kum ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2864; [2007(3)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 28th February 2006 passed by Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Bokaro in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 24 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs. 11,61,500/-. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal while assessing compensation has considered the gross salary of the deceased instead of net salary.2. Admitted facts are that the deceased was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited a Kalyani Project and was aged about 58 years. The Tribunal considering his gross salary as Rs. 18,000/-calculated compensation amount. Before the Tribunal the pay slip and the deduction chart of the deceased employee was produced which was marked as Ext. 3 and 3/1. The Tribunal taking into consideration the Ext. 3 and 3/1. The Tribunal taking into consideration the Ext. 3 and 3/1 noticed that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,914=62 and his net salary ...
Md. Akhtar HussaIn Vs. Bank of India, Through the Regional Manager and
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR101(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner who was posted as a Cashier at Hunterganj, Branch and Ramgarh Cantt branch was proceeded departmentally for the following charges:1. During your tenure at Bank's Hunterganj Branch you permitted withdrawals to a third party in S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md. Shoriff in contravention of the banking norms and unanthorisedly allowed transfer entries from the above account of the account holder. (a) on 25.6.97 you permitted a withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md Shariff to a third party by means of a withdrawal slip, without accompanied by the pass book, violating the ruins of the bank. (b) on 16.10.198/ you permitted a withdrawal of Rs. 12,000/- from the same S/B A/C No 3611 of Md. Shariff to a third party by means of a withdrawal slip without any supporting pass book, violating the rules of the bank. (c) On 08.08.198/ you prepared a set of transfer voucher of Rs. 3,000/- from S/B A/C No. 3611 of Md. Shariff to S/B A/C No. 19/ of M...
Misrilall JaIn and Sons and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. Overruled
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2042; [2007(3)JCR292(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the authority of the State of Jharkhand, Department of Mines to issue executive order/resolution revising the surface rent of the land held by the petitioners as mining lessees. In all these writ applications, since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the resolution as contained in memo No. 1055 dated 17.6.2005 whereby and where under the State Govt. has arbitrarily changed the rate and mode of calculation of the surface rent for the area used by the lessee for mining purposes and thereby decided that the entire land under the lease for mining purposes will be commercially valued and 5% of the valuation so arrived and will be charged as the surface rent and further for declaring the aforementioned resolution as illegal, void and contrary to the rule m...
Employers in Relation to Bararee Coke Plant of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1612; [2007(114)FLR948]; [2007(3)JCR365(Jhr)]; (2008)ILLJ115Jhar
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. This case has got a chequered history. Diplal Singh, a watchman working under M/s. Bararee Coke Plant, was terminated by the management by the notice dated 12.10.1971 with effect from 19.10.1971. The said Coke Plant was taken over by the Central Government under the Emergency Provision Act through Gazette dated 23.12.1971 giving retrospective effect from 16.10.1971. A dispute was raised by the workman after about 9 years of termination. Consequently, the Central Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the present employer, contested the matter contending that Diplal Singh, the workman, was not the workman under them since the management of M/s. Bararee Coke Plant was taken over by the Central Government only on 27.12.1971 by a notification and in the meantime, the workman was terminated even as early as on 19.10 1971 and at the time of taking over of the management, the workman was not on the roll of the former empl...
Munsif and ChamIn OraIn Vs. Sukra Oraon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR189(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by defendant No. 1 appellant is against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit property has been decreed by the Munsif. Gumla in forms of judgment and docree dated 6th March, 1986 in Title Suit No. 26/83 and the same was affirmed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 16/86.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: One Fagu Oraon was the common ancestor of the parties. He had four sons, Jitia, Ghusu Jitu and Sukra. Ghusu died issueless. Jitia had no male issue. Defendant No. 1,Chamin Oraoin is the daughter of Jitia from the first wife Dluitni. Jitu had four sons, Ghashi, Bana,Chanda and Mirsai. Chanda died issueless. Ghashi Birsai and Bana are defendant nos. 2,3 and 4. Sukra, son of Fagu had one son, Timru. Timru has two sons, Sukra who is the plaintiff and Ghusu who is the proform a defendant No. 5.3. Plaintiffs' case is that Jitu son of Fagu had no male...
Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust and ors. Vs. Power Grid Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar34; 2007(2)BLJR1798; [2007(3)JCR254(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties at length for final disposal.2. Petitioners' contention is that the respondents cannot use their land/part of it for erection of towers and for transmission of overhead lines without their consent; whereas the contention of the respondents is that no such consent is required.3. The question, therefore, falls for consideration is whether the consent of petitioners is required for erecting towers and transmission of the overhead lines over their land 4. Respondent No. 1 is a Central Government Company and is a Licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Licensee for short). The Licensee is required to establish transmission system and to undertake transmission of electricity through inter-State transmission system. Therefore by a notification dated 24.12.2003 issued under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Ministry of Power, Government of India, authorized the Licensee to exercise all the powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Pa...
Amod Prasad Ram Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2006; [2007(3)JCR283(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Amod Prasad Ram is a retired District & Sessions Judge. He was appointed as Chairman of permanent Lok Adalat of the District of Jamshedpur by the order dated 12.3.2004 for two years. He assumed charge as such on 4.4.2004 and got superannuated in March, 2006. He presented the bills claiming Rs. 2,69,000/- for 538 sittings as he is entitled to Rs. 500/- per sitting and also the conveyance allowance of Rs. 72,000/- claiming Rs. 3000/- per month, totaling Rs. 3,41,000/-. The State Legal Services Authority paid him only Rs. 99,000/- and the balance of Rs. 2,42,000/- has not been paid. Having felt aggrieved by this, he approached this Court and filed the writ petition under Article 226, seeking for issuance of mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities to pay the statutory balance legal dues towards sitting fees as well as the conveyance allowance.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:On being appointed by the order dated 12.3.2004 as Chairman, ...
Deepak Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2193; [2007(3)JCR218(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent N.6- Om Prakash Singh, and Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 22 of 2007 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.3. The petitioner-appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the notification No. 3948 dated 30th December, 2006 whereby he has been transferred from the post of Assistant Engineer, MESO Area, Ranchi to the post of Assistant Engineer, MESO Area, Latehar. The petitioner also challenged the nonfiction dated 30th December, 2006 whereby respondent No. 6 has been transferred as an Assistant Engineer, MESO Area, Ranchi.4. The grievance of the appellant in the writ petition was that he was transferred at the instance of the Minister, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »