Jharkhand Court June 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.
Dr. Birsa Oraon and anr. Vs. State Through C.B.i.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR632(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.The appellants are husband and wife. The first appellant was facing trial in R.C. Case No. 32(A)/1996 and R.C. Case 24(A)/1996. He was convicted in disproportionate of assets case against which the appeal is still pending before this Court.2. According to the prosecution, the first appellant defalcated Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, to the extent of Rs. 8.64 Crores during the period May, 1995 to December, 1995 and acquired movable and immoveable properties in different places in his name and also in the name of his wife, daughter and son.3. Earlier an application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 was filed before the Court below by C.B.I, praying to pass ad interim order of attachment with respect to the properties detailed in Annexure - 1. After being satisfied about the prima facie case, ad interim order of attachment was passed on 18.2.1997. Thereafter a request had been made by the counsel for C.B.I, to pass a final order...
Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey and ors. Vs. State Through C.B.i., Spe
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR120(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The first appellant and second appellant are husband and wife respectively and other appellants are members of that family. The first appellant was facing trial in R.C. Case No. 35 (a)/1996 Pat. and other Fodder Scam cases.2. According to the prosecution, the first appellant, a public servant, while working as Piggery Development Officer, AHD, Ranchi, defalcated Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, to the tune of Rs. 1297.58 lacs during the period September, 1995 to December 1995. He acquired huge moveable and immovable properties in different places in his name and also in the names of other appellants, namely, his wife and children. Appellant No. 1 was also involved in other criminal cases and in conspiracy with others had defalcated the Government to the extent of Rs. 80 Crores approximately.The respondent CBI filed an application on 30.11.1996 for an ad interim order of attachment of the properties listed in Annexure 2 under Section 3 of the Criminal Law...
J. Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR122]; [2007(4)JCR605(Jhr)]; (2008)ILLJ951Jhar
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them vide P.G. case No. 72 of 2004 pending in the Court of Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, as also for quashing the order dated 15.3.2004, whereby the cognizance of the offences relating to violation of provisions of Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the breach of Rules 3(2) and 8(l)(i) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 was taken against them.2. The main grounds advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayer is that;1. the learned Court below while passing the order of cognizance has acted mechanically without application of judicial mind and without passing any order of condonation of delay in filing the complaint.2. that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 is not competent to file the complaint against the petitioners under Section 11 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, the order of c...
Tayo Rolls Limited Through Sri Gopala Krishnan Vaidyanathan Vs. State ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR995]; [2008(1)JCR268(Jhr)]; (2008)IILLJ763Jhar
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 17.4.2007 issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation for recovery of the amount of contribution for the period from 1.10.1999 to 30.9.2006 for total demand of Rs. 1,14,38,354/-.2. It has been stated that the petitioner has applied for exemption under the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the Employees State Insurance Act before the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the matter is still pending. In the meanwhile, the said demand notice has been issued. It has been stated that in the similar circumstances, several orders have been passed by this Court whereby the realization of the amount has been stayed till the decision of the competent authority on the prayer for exemption.3. The said position has not been disputed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.4. Considering the above, since the petitioner...
Vijay Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR318(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, which was initiated on the basis of the case registered at Latehar Police Station, vide Latehar P.S. Case No. 66 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 194 of 1998 presently pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. The F.I.R. was lodged on 26.7.1998 and the case was registered for the offences under sections 420,409,467,468 and 471 IPC.2. Two main grounds have been advanced in support of the prayer. The first ground is that none of the offences for which the case was registered, is made out against the petitioner even on a bare reading of the allegations in the F.I.R. and the second ground is that the informant has suppressed material facts knowingly and intentionally with mala fide intention to cause undue harassment to the petitioner. A third ground, which has also been advanced, is that the order of cognizance is totally bad in law, as because no prior sanction for prosecuting the p...
Bablu Marandi and anr. Vs. Eastern Railway Division Through Divisional ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR330(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1 Heard.2. Petitioners have prayed for direction to restrain the Railways from constructing railway siding on the raiyati lands in Mauza Moti Jharna, Chak Moti Jhama and Banskela west of Mahajanpur Railway Station, P.S. Taljihari, District Sahibganj and for restraining them from carrying ballasts from the nearby stone quarry and stone crusher machines and for direction to pay adequate compensation to them against their lands occupied by the Railway. Petitioners have further prayed for declaration that the respondents 1 and 2 Railways have no right, title and interest over the lands in question.3. According to the petitioner, sometimes in the year 1970-71, the Railway acquired about 19 acres of agricultural lands including the lands in question under land acquisition proceeding by way of temporary measure for a period of 3 years for making arrangement for construction of railway line in case the Maharajpur Railway Station gets submerged into the Gangas. It is furth...
Ghanashyam Tiwari Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2189; [2007(3)JCR654(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The common question arises in these writ petition(s) is as to whether the petitioner(s), whose parent department is Road Construction Department, can be put under suspension by the authority of Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand.2. Identical relief(s) have been sought by the writ petitioner(s) for quashing their suspension order and for a direction to pay subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.3. Writ petitioner of W.P.(s) No. 814 of 2007 was appointed as an Assistant Engineer by notification dated 25th November, 1981 in Public Works Department, which is now known as Road Construction Department. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in December, 2003. He was sent on deputation in Rural Engineering Organisation on 16th December, 2003 and since thereafter he has been working at Jamshedpur in Works Division of Rural Engineering Organisation. It has been stated that the petitioner was surprisingly put un...
Most. Sukari Devi Vs. Gagandeo Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR646(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1990 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 73/1988, whereby he has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1988 passed by 1st Additional Munsif Giridih in Title Suit No. 31/86. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.2. Plaintiff/appellant filed aforementioned suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit property comprised within plot nos. 80 and 339 situated in Mouza Jahria Gadi P.S. Giridih.3. The case of the plaintiff/appellant was that one Bulo Kumhar acquired an area of 1.30 acres of plot No. 80 and 10 acres of area of plot No. 339 through settlement from the ex-landlord. After settlement she came in possession of the same. Bulo Kumhar died leaving two sons namely, Babulal Kumhar and Mishry Kumhar(defendant nos.2 and 3) who inherited the property and came in possession of the same. Defen...
Mahesh Ganjhu and ors. Vs. Gopal Ram Ganjhu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar2; [2007(3)JCR657(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff/appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1990 passed by the 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 41/1986 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1986 passed by Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 89/1978.2. The facts of the case lien a narrow compass:Plaintiff/appellants filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land bearing khata No. 398 situated at Mauza Khunti and khata No. 6 of village Kusum Toll, Khunti, Plaintiffs' cases is that they are the descendants of Bhola Ganjhu whose name was recorded in Revisional Survey records of right. The suit land are the bakast land of Bhola Ganjhu. The defendants except defendant No. 20 are the descendants of Dhuru Ram Ganjhu and Ganjhu Ram Ganjhu, whereas defendant No. 20 is stranger to the family. It was further alleged that Chamru Ganjhu father of...
Bishwanath Ram and ors. Vs. Most. Lawangwas Kuer and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2211; [2007(3)JCR638(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th December, 1989 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1987 whereby he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25th August, 1987 passed by Sub-Judge, Garhwa at Palamau in Title Suit No. 124 of 1981.2. Plaintiffs filed aforesaid Title Suit No. 124/81 for declaration that the suit land is raiyati land of the plaintiff and the sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 has not affected the right title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land.3. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that one Dhautal Kahar was common ancestor of both the plaintiff and the defendants except defendant No. 1. Dhautal Kahar died in 1920 leaving behind three sons Fakira Kahar, Jagira Kahar and Jagan Kahar. Plaintiff is the son of Fakira Kahar, whereas defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the son...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »