Jharkhand Court July 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.
Lachhan Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR602(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. The Sole appellant Lachhan Mahto @ Laxman Mahto has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2001 and 25.5.2001 respectively passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/307/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, for ten years and for ten years respectively and fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months each, all the sentences to run concurrently.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the after noon of 29.4.1989 P.W. 1 Dr. Ahmad Ali visited village Tarwa P.S. Keredari, district Hazaribagh in course of attending his patient Bandhan Ganjhu where after the treatment some dispute arose between the doctor and Bandhan Ganjhu on payment of fees. As further stated the appellant took up the cause and threatened him for asking exorbitant fees. However afte...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Taufique Khan and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR375(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the interim compensation awarded to the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since it has been categorically stated by the claimant that the deceased was travelling on the truck along with the goods, we are not in a position to interfere with the award, at this stage. However, the appellant may take all the defence which may be available in the main application filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It however, goes without saying that in the event the appellant succeeds in the main application, the appellant shall have right of recovery from the owner of the vehicle, so far as the interim compensation is concerned.3. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant may withdraw the statutory amount deposited in this Court in order to pay interim compensation to the claimant respondents. ...
Bishwanath Shah Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2426; [2007(4)JCR53(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, a local resident of Saraiyahat Block within Dumka District, has filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Government of Jharkhand in its letter dated 02/06/2006 in the matter of selection of Anganbari Sevikas and Sahayikas. Further prayer is to quash the appointment which already were made allegedly in violation of the said guidelines issued by the State Government.3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the selection of Anganbari Sevikas and Sahayikas are being made by the Executive Magistrate, which is contrary to the procedure prescribed in the guidelines of the State Government. According to the petitioner, the selection has to be made not by the Executive Magistrate but by the Child Development Project Officer, which is not being followed in the District of Dumka. It is also alleged ...
Ram Nandan Singh Alias Baban Singh Vs. Thansa Bhuiyan and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar73; [2007(4)JCR103(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is against the judgment of reversal.2. Plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession being Title Suit No. 26 of 1986 was decreed by Munsif, Hazaribagh in terms of judgment dated 12th May, 1988. However, in appeal filed by the defendant-respondents being Title Appeal No. 68 of 1988, the Second Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh being the appellate Court, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1990 reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and allowed the appeal, thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.3. The plaintiffs case, inter alia, is that he purchased 4 decimals of land under Plot No. 239 of Khata No. 661 of village Noora, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh from the defendants-respondents through a registered sale-deed dated 25.8.1980 for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. After purchase, the plaintiff was put in possession of the land. The plaintiff ...
Kec International Ltd. Vs. the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC464; [2007(3)JCR604(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner's contention is that though its offer was lower but even then the work has been awarded to respondent No. 3.3. Against the notice inviting tender (NIT) in question-Package B NIT No. 02/PR/ JSEB/06-07 Singhbhum (West) dated 3.4.2006, four offers were made. On technical and commercial evaluation, petitioner and respondent No. 3 were found eligible. Price bid was opened on 8.8.2006. Respondent No. 3 was found L 1.4. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner indicated the service tax separately as per the terms of NIT whereas respondent No. 3 did not indicate it separately. Had the price bid been compared excluding service tax, petitioner's bid of Rs. 139.51 crores was lower than the bid of respondent No. 3 of Rs. 140.64 crores.5. The case of the respondents, inter alia, is as follows. Petitioner's offer including service tax was Rs. 144.79 crores, whereas the offer of respondent No. 3 was Rs. 144.5...
Raghavendra Kumar Das Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR188(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been put under suspension w.e.f. 15.1.2007 in contemplation of some proceeding, the memorandum of charge has not been served on him till date and the petitioner has been unnecessarily kept under suspension. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he is also not being paid the subsistence allowance.2. At this stage, learned J.C. to S.C. (Mines) is not able to say regarding the progress in the proceeding, but it has been submitted that if the memorandum has not been served, the same shall be served without further delay. It has also been submitted that if the petitioner is not being paid the subsistence allowance arrangement shall be made to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner.3. Considering the said submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to serve the memorandum charge, if any, as contemplated by the respondents while ...
Ravikant Pandey and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR281(Jhr)]
1. The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 9.7.2003 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The petitioners-appellants sought for a mandamus directing the respondents for payment of their arrears of salary for the period 1983 to 1997.2. In 1981, the Government of Bihar took a decision to appoint Science Teachers and accordingly an advertisement was published in the newspaper. The appellants applied for the same and after interview, their names were included in the list of successful candidates and they were appointed. Some time later, the appellants and others were dismissed from service on the ground that appointment made during the tenure of the Superintendent of Education was cancelled. Challenging the same, the matter was brought to the Patna High Court and ultimately the matter went upto Supreme Court. Pursuant to the directions and observations made by the Supreme Court, the appellants were reappointed in 1997. Now the grievance of the ...
Yadubansh Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR351; [2007(114)FLR1156]; [2008(1)JCR200(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of his compulsory retirement dated 28th June, 2005 issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 2, which was communicated by Memo No. 776(G) dated 28th June, 2005.2. It has been submitted that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on the ground of disability, is violative of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Disability Act') and is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.3. Petitioner's case is that he was duly appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1991 and was posted on the said post in District Police Force, Dhanbad. According to the Secondary School Certificate, petitioner's date of birth is 1st December, 1948 and as such, he would attain the age of 60 years in December, 2008. The petitioner, wh...
Nandji Upadhya Vs. Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR111(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's case has not been properly considered while rejecting his claim by the impugned order dated 4.1.1997. Regarding ground No. (a) of rejection, he submitted that petitioner and Deobrat Mahto both were appointed initially as Assistant. Both of them were also designated as Mining Mate and sent for training and they worked as Laboratory Incharge after the training and not Mining Mate but it wrongly stated that petitioner has been working as Mining Mate. Regarding ground No. (b) he submitted that petitioner is claiming designation and pay scale of Chemist and therefore, there is no use of saying that the Corporation has never designated the petitioner as Chemist. Moreover, this Court found in the earlier writ petition being CWJC No. 1459 of 1990 (R) that undisputedly petitioner was working as Laboratory Incharge. Regarding ground No. (c) he submitted that Amarnath Singh and Daya ...
Arbind Kumar Upadhyay Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR341; [2007(4)JCR154(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The writ petitioner, a Constable in B.M.P.3, was proceeded against departmentally for the alleged misconduct and was simultaneously put under suspension by order dated 17.11.1995.2. A memorandum of charge was served containing charges against the petitioner. According to the charges, the petitioner attempted to kill his wife, Indu Devi. He thought that she is dead. He performed her last rite at his native village. But after sometime, his wife was found admitted in Ranchi Medical College & Hospital. An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and a case was registered as Paliganj P.S. case no. 89 of 1995 under sections 498A, 307,325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, an act and deed unbecoming of a police personnel, which amounts to serious indiscipline, breach of duty and misconduct.3. The petitioner denied the charges in his written explanation. His defence was that he has neither assaulted his wife nor has performed her last rite, as alleged. According to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »