Jharkhand Court August 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.
Satyapal Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR134(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet vide letter No. 742/97 and the entire departmental proceeding vide No. 27/97 and the order of dismissal vide No. 37/C dated 31.1.1998 (Annexure8), the order of the appellate authority vide letter No. 803/GS dated 20.7.1998 (Annexure-9/1) and also the order dated 21.4.1999 (Annexure-11) passed by the Director General of Police rejecting the memorial.2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.3. It appears that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and one Safruddin Ansari on the charges that on 3.9.1997 while they were on duty with A.S.I. Ram Parvesh Paswan, when the train stopped on the station, the petitioner and Safruddin Ansari did not allow the passengers to board the train and allowed the vegetable vendors to l...
Sanjay Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR646(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The present Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Shri Arun Kumar Datta, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in S.T. No. 103 of 2001 whereby the sole appellant, Sanjay Murmu has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and simple imprisonment for one month respectively under the aforesaid sections with direction that the sentences would run concurrently.2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the statement of the informant, Arsu Murmu recorded in Moshabani Mines Hospital on 8.7.1999 at 11.10 a.m. in injured condition was that on the same day she alongwith her son Anta Murmu (since deceased) and Halwaha Burha Murmu had been to her field and while Halwaha Burha Murmu was ploughing the field the appellant Sanjay Murmu with his father Baley Murmu appeared there armed with bow, arrows and axe in their hands and...
State of Jharkhand and anr. Vs. NavIn Kumar Sinhga and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar19; [2007(3)JCR668(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1662 of 2007, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by petitioner/appellant-State of Jharkhand and held that the order passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand is legal, valid and justified.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The Urban Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand advertised invitation of proposals for Project Management Consultancy Service including detailed engineering design and construction supervision for sewerage and drainage system for the capital city of Ranchi. Pursuant to the said tender notice the following six consultants purchased tender papers. They were namely-(1) Meinhardt (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd.(2) STUP Consultants (P) Ltd.(3) GKW Consultant,(4) Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd.,(5) Burchill Partners Pvt. Ltd.(6) RITES LTD.3. Out of six consultants, the following fo...
Aashirbad Construction Private Ltd. Vs. Jamshedpur Notified Area Commi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR124(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.2007 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 1335 of 2007, whereby the petition of the petitioner was dismissed.2. The appellant herein, are building contractors. For the purpose of constructing multi storied building complex, on a portion of plot No. 1291 under khata No. 40 in Mauza Ulliyan, petitioner submitted a proposed building plan to the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3). The proposed building plan as submitted by the petitioner, was approved and communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 29.12.2004. On obtaining the approval, petitioner commenced construction work. While construction was in progress, petitioner received a letter bearing No. 37 dated 6.1.2006 issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3, directing him to stop further construction and to demolish certain unauthorised construction whic...
Kamta Pandey Vs. B.C.C.L. Through Chairman-cum-managing Director and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR681(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Kamta Pandey, the petitioner, an employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the respondent, has raised the dispute about the date of birth. According to the petitioner, his date of birth, as reflected in the Matriculation Certificate, is 1.7.1951. The respondents have, however, disputed the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and insisted on the date of birth recorded in the Form 'B' Register, which is said to be the statutory one. Hence, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by filing a writ of mandamus.2. At the time of hearing before the learned Single Judge, two judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court giving conflicting views were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.3. The Division Bench, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir (then Chief Justice) and Justice R.K. Merathia in the case of Awadhesh Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. 2005 (2) JCR 474 (Jhr.) held that as per the In...
Baidyanath Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Chief Secretary, G ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2929; [2007(3)JCR676(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The employee in Government service, relying upon the date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate has raised the claim that the Matriculation Certificate alone would be conclusive proof of his age in preference to his service register. In order to decide the above issue, this case has been referred to this Full Bench.2. The prayer in this writ petition by the petitioner, Baidyanath Singh, is for seeking for the quashing of the Memo dated 26.5.2004 of the SP(T), Special Branch informing the petitioner that his date of birth as per his Service Book is 1946 and so he is to retire on 30.6.2004 and to direct the respondents to correct the date of birth in the service book of the petitioner from 1946 to 6.6.1948. The case of the petitioner is as follows:(a) The petitioner passed the Matriculation in the year 1966. In the Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth has been mentioned as 6.6.1948.(b) He was appointed as Constable on 14.1.1969.(c) In the service ...
Gayatri Devi and ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Prasad Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR135(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal by the claimant appellants is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in claim Case No. 19 of 1991.3. There is no dispute with regard to the monthly earning of the deceased. The deceased was getting Rs. 1.184/43P + 20% bonus every year. Out of Rs. 1200/-, the Tribunal has taken only Rs. 931/- as the monthly dependency and the annual dependency has been assessed at Rs. 11,172/-. After taking the multiplier of thirteen years, the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 1,45,236/-.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the age of the deceased and also the fact that the deceased died leaving behind his widow, minor children and other dependents, the award cannot and shall not be less than Rs. 2.5 - 3 lacs. We are not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly, the deceased was earning Rs. 1200/-per month and, therefore, the amount of monthly dependency as taken by ...
Bhola Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR151(Jhr)]
ORDERRamesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioners claim that they have a right to be considered for regularisation on the ground that they are working under work charged establishment continuously without any break; and. for payment of wages from March, 2002.3. Mr. Bibhuti Pandey. learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are still working under the work-charged establishment. He relied on a statement signed on 24.2.2006 (Annexure-10) by one Shri Devendra Prasad Singh, the then Executive Engineer and the Letter No. 274 dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure-11) issued by the same officer along with the statements (Annexure-12). He submitted that the said Letter No. 274 dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure-11) was in reply to the letter dated 26.4.2007 of the Deputy Secretary and the letter dated 24.4.2007 of the Chief Engineer. He further submitted that when the petitioners relied on the said documents, the respondents are saying that the sai...
Smt. Sonmat Devi and ors. and Smt. Manju Devi and anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2265; [2007(4)JCR56(Jhr)]
ORDER1. On Gangadhar Sahu died in a motor vehicle accident leaving behind his mother Smt. Sonmat Devi, widow Smt. Manju Devi, two minor children Namita Kumari and Niraj Kumar from the first wife of the deceased and one minor son Nishant Kumar from the second marriage with Smt. Manju Devi. All the five claimants jointly filed Compensation Case No. 98 of 1998 in the Court of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. The claimants case was that the deceased was a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Jharkhand and was getting salary of Rs. 7280/-. The claimants, therefore, jointly claimed Rs. 10 lakhs by way of compensation. The tribunal after hearing the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 6,83,000/-. However, the tribunal held that' since the claimant Manju Devi has not produced any document in support of her case that she is the second wife of the deceased and the first wife was divorced by the deceased, she is not entitled to any compensation. Hence, ...
Jakir HussaIn and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR120(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers : (i) for declaring the provisions of Section 8 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Panchayat Act') ultra vires, illegal and beyond the legislative competence of the State of Jharkhand, being contrary to the provisions contained in Part-IX of the Constitution of India; (ii) for declaring Rule 5(Ga) of Jharkhand Gram Sabha (Gathan, Baithak Ki Parkriya Ewam Kamkaj Ka Sanchalan) Niyamawali, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rule 2003') ultra vires and beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the State Government; and (iii) for quashing Letter No. 266 dated 14th February, 2006 addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners, whereby guideline has been issued for conducting the meeting of Gram Sabha in non-scheduled areas, providing for elections of persons to preside over the meetings and to act as a Pradhan in the Gram Sabha, being contrary to the provis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »