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.
Sukro Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar15; 2008CriLJ1144; I(2008)DMC425; [2007(4)JCR385(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the 1st Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Criminal Revision No. III of 2000, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.8.2000 passed by the learned ACJM, Khunti in Maintenance Case No. 6 of 1997 praying for maintenance was dismissed.2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was married to the opposite-party No. 2 and from their consortium, a son was born to the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that subsequent to the birth of the child, the attitude and behaviour of her husband underwent a drastic change and he began subjecting her to ill treatment, neglect, cruelty and physical violence to her. She was ultimately expelled from her matrimonial house on 22.8.1996 and therefore, she had resorted to criminal proceedings by way of a complaint being complaint case No. 58 of 1996 and having been totally neglected by ...
Anand Kumar @ R. Anand, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2409; [2007(4)JCR309(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda vide P.C.R. Case No. 691 of 2003 and also the order dated 24.02.2004 passed in the case by the learned court below, whereby cognizance for the offences under Section 392 of the I.P.C. was taken against the petitioners.2. The main ground advanced in support of the prayer is that the case against the petitioners has been filed by the complainant entirely on false and frivolous allegations and by suppressing material facts that the vehicle, in question, was purchased under a Hire Purchase Scheme financed by M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Dhanbad on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.05.2002 and re-possession of the vehicle by the financer on account of failure of the complainant to pay the monthly installments towards repayment of the loan amount, could at best be a civil dispute and ca...
Bangalore Ram Prasad @ B.R. Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3980; [2007(3)JCR378(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Court of the Sub-Judge-cum-CBI Dhanbad vide R.C. Case No. 20 (A) of 1995 (D) including the order dated 1.2.2001, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the corresponding Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was taken against the petitioner. The impugned order of cognizance and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Investigating Officer had intentionally and deliberately suppressed the material facts and by projecting the facts in a distorted manner, has misled the learned Court below to take cognizance of the offences against him and thereby the investigating agency has abused the process of the Court, which has caused serious ...
J.P. Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR829]; [2007(4)JCR291(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. These three applications relating to the same parties and involving common points for decision are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. Three separate cases were instituted by the Opposite-Party No. 2 in his capacity of being the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), who on his inspection of the Establishment of the accused persons, on different dates, had found that the accused persons were getting the work of loading coal at the loading point of the various collieries and of transportation of the coal from the loading point to the local sale point, through workers engaged in the contract through private transport agencies, though the engagement of contract labour for such work is prohibited by the Notification No. S.O. 2063 dated 2.7.1998 issued by the Ministry of Labour of the Government of India and is in violation of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regular and Abolition) Act, 1970, and, as such, the accused persons are liable to be pr...
Tribal Medical Association Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR84(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. In both these petitions, following common questions have arisen for consideration:(1) Whether a Tribal lady, who got married with non-tribal husband, may continue to get reservation under Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution ?(2) Whether the admission of Sneha Salila, respondent No. 6, in the medical college in M.B.B.S course, whose father was not a member of Scheduled Tribe community, is liable to be cancelled and the petitioner, who is a daughter of the Tribal couple, is entitled to the said seat in M.B.B.S course ?2. The short facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows:Savita Bala Tuti, the petitioner, was born in Ranchi on 12.2.1986. She studied in Loreto Convent, Ranchi, a very reputed school, and passed the School Final with high first class in I.C.S.E. in 2002. The petitioner's father, Jagpati Tuti, belongs to a very interior village of Khunti, Ranchi District. He belongs to Munda community, Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, petitioner's ...
Vardaan Builders and anr. Vs. Veer Krishna Sahay
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar4; 2008(1)ARBLR530(Jhar)
Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The appellants are the builders. The respondent is the owner of the land. This appeal filed by the builders is directed against the order dated 7-9-2005 passed by learned Sub-Judge, VI, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005, dismissing the application filed by the appellants-builders under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the Act) confirming the award dated 31-10-2004 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.2. The short facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:On 1-10-1998, M/s. Vardaan Builders, the appellant herein, the builder, entered into a development agreement with one Veer Krishna Sahay, respondent herein, who is the owner of the 33 Kathas of land in M.S. Plot No. 1480 at 70, S.K. Sahay Road, Ranchi. The said development agreement was for construction of a Multi-storeyed Residential Apartment. After the aforesaid agreement was entered into, the construction work of the building had commenced.As per ...
Dubraj Oraon Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2201; 2007CriLJ4667; II(2007)DMC261
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 21.04.1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1997 whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.07.1996 at about 7:00 A.M., the informant Somla Oraon (P.W.-1) came back his home after attending the call of nature. He saw that his wife Bandhwa Orain, (P.W.-10) was weeping in the room of his son. When he entered in the room, he saw the appellant coming out of the room and then he fled away without uttering a word. The informant found that his daughter-in-law Saro Orain was lying dead. On enquiry, his wife (P.W.-10) told that the appellant had stabbed Saro Orain to death. The informant, thereafter, called the villagers and told them about the occurrence.3.The further case of the prosecution ...
Anil Kumar and Sakil Ahmad Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2185
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Both the above-mentioned criminal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, and, as such, both the appeals were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the appellants were charged and tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Against the appellant Anil Kumar of Cr. Appeal No. 238/2004 it is alleged that he was found having unlawful possession of 25 purias of 'Ganja' whereas the appellant Sakil Ahmad of Cr. Appeal No. 588/2004 was found having unlawful possession of 4 purias of 'Heroine'. The learned Special Judge, under the N.D.P.S. Act by the impugned judgment dated 16/01/2004, convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant Anil Kumar has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year. Appellant Sakil Ahmad...
Steel City Press Ltd. Through Mohammad Asudulla Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR369(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned demand notice dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure-10) whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the alleged due amount of Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act').2. According to the petitioner, the said Act was initially not made applicable to the area of the petitioner's establishment. For the first time in the year 1996, the said Act was made applicable in the area where the petitioner's establishment is situated. On coming to know about the applicability of the said Act, the petitioner immediately applied for grant of exemption before the State of Bihar (now the State of Jharkhand). The State Government is the appropriate authority to grant such exemption. The said application is still pending and no decision has been taken till date, It has been stated that the petitioner's employees are getting the medical facilities and they are satisfied with the same and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›