Jharkhand Court September 2007 Judgments
Sanjay Kumar Choubey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-28-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1168
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The present Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 3.8.2007 passed by Shri Prabhkar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Gomia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.2. The allegation against the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Choubey and another Bayash Kumar was that they being the proprietor and Manager respectively of M/s Urmila Service Station (Petrol Pump), Kathara raised huge amount from different persons including Rs. 3.5 lakhs from the informant and embezzled the same. The amount was not returned to the informant in spite of his repeated request and hence the police case against both of them.3. The petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the police after investigation had filed final form exonerating his criminal liability but the A.C.J.M.,. Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-28-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1167
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The present Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 20-6-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 Cr. P.C. for their discharge was rejected in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 2007 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2005. It was alleged in the Fardbeyan of the informant that in the evening of 19-9-2005 two unknown persons came to his house who asked his wife Sumitra Devi (since deceased) to accompany them for settlement of the land dispute. His wife accompanied them followed by his son and on the way his son was asked by them to stay and wait there. His wife Sumitra Devi proceeded with two unknown persons. After some time his son Madan Singh returned back who narrated to his father informant that her mother accompanied two unknown persons and hereafter she did not return. The informant made extensive search in and around the village as als...
Tag this Judgment!Raghab Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR174(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. Considering the statements made in the petition and the grounds taken therein, we are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay in filing the letters patent appeal.3. According this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.4. I.A. No. 2685/2007 stands disposed of.L.P.A. No. 308 of 20075. With the consent of the parties the appeal was taken up and after hearing the parties the same is being disposed of at this stage itself.6. The writ petitioner, a peon, had filed W.P.S. No. 5356/2002 wherein he prayed for direction to the respondents to pay his arrears of salary, which according to him was illegally withheld from March 1992. The petitioner alleges that similarly situated other persons appointed by the same authority in the same manner, are continuing in service and are being paid their salary pursuant to the order passed by this Court in several cases, filed by the other si...
Tag this Judgment!Anjan Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR655(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This application filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.7.2006 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Rev. No. 115 of 2006 whereby prayer of the petitioners to quash the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was refused.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that opposite- party No. 2 lodged a case before the Sonari Police Station stating therein that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 in the year 1992 and in course of time members of in-laws' family (petitioners) started demanding part of her earning which she used to earn by teaching in a school and in order to get the demand fulfilled, she was being subjected to torture and on the said allegation, a case was registered under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, when the cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Maa Bhawani Timber Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR346(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The writ petitioner, in this case, has mainly, challenged the State Government's policy decision for regulating the number of saw-mills in the State and particularly the directions issued regarding grant of fresh licence and renewal of licence for running saw-mills in the state. He has also challenged the order of rejection of his application for renewal of licence/suspension of licence and the order, asking the petitioner to shift his saw-mill at a minimum distance of 5 K.Ms. from the Notified Forest Area in view of the policy decision.2. The said decision of the Government was circulated by Letter No. 343 dated 28th October, 2000 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of the Secretary, Government of Bihar (as then was) to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, whereby a direction had been issued, prohibiting running of saw-mills, veneer mills, plywood mills and other timber based industries within 5 K.Ms. from the Notified Forest Area. And further, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sachidanand Thakur Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR250(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In the writ petition the petitioner-appellant had sought for a direction of this Court commanding upon the respondents concerned to restore the position of the petitioner in the seniority list as was existing on 15.7.2000 and thereby suitably modify the Notification No. 2629 (S) dated 29.6.06 issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhsnd, Ranchi.2. The petitioner has claimed that similarly situated persons of general category (unreserved category), namely, M/s Ripusudan Dubey, Raghubansh Prasad Singh, Tripurari Shankar Prasad and Krishnanand Choubey and several others have been given their due place, but the petitioner was not considered only on the ground that he had not approached this Court.3. The appellant presently holds the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f 6.2.97 after his promotion to the said post on 31.1.97. The State of Bihar had published a seniority list in respect of the Engineering Services Class-I which was published by No...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR246(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. All the above interlocutory applications have been filed in the midst of the hearing of the above-mentioned writ 'petitions with the same prayer based on similar facts. Parties are also common and as such with the consent of the parties, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL)-4th Respondent in the said writ petitions is the applicant in all the interlocutory applications. The applicant has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that clearance for filing these petitions has not been obtained from the Committee, to be constituted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra and Ors.-Civil Appeal No. 3143 of 2007.3. The writ petitions have been filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the legality/validity of the final ord...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Krishna Kumar Lal Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR221(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for declaring Section 14 (v) of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002 read with Rule 19 of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Rules to be ultravires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also for quashing the notification dated 08/01/2005 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, notifying the absorption of the services of those employees, who were already working in Rajendra Medical College 8b Hospital (herein after called as RMCH for the sake of convenience) on the basis of their option. Further prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for giving direction to the respondents to give opportunity to all the members of the State Health, Medical Education Department cadre for absorption of the services in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (herein after referred as RIMS in short for convenience).2. The petitioner is presently posted as Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR263(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite he has worked from 22.1.1997 to 31.12.1997, the salary was not paid to him. The benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP were sanctioned as far back as on 19.12.2005, but till date, the monetary benefits thereof have not been given to the petitioner in spite of his repeated requests and representations.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim for his salary. It has been stated that the petitioner had not worked during the period from 22.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 and, as such, he is not entitled to get his salary. So far as benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP are concerned, it has been admitted that the same was sanctioned by letter No. 4099 dated 19.12.2005.2.3. After going through the counter-affidavit, I find that there is no mention of any such order earlier by the department to withhold the salary of the petitioner on the ground of his absence for the period from 22.1.1997 to 31...
Tag this Judgment!Bishwanath Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR396(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant herein.2. The facts, in short, leading to the present appeal are that the petitioner had filed W.P.C. No. 5520/2003 for quashing of Annexure-9 to the present appeal, i.e., the order dated 20th February, 2003, passed in Mutation Appeal No. 39/2000-01, whereby the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the Circle Officer, Jugasalai, Jamshedpur, in Mutation Case No. 298/1994-95 rejecting his prayer for mutation, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.3. According to the writ petitioner, on 19.2.1998 he purchased plot Nos. 4861, 4862, 4823, 3032, 3027 and 2382 corresponding to new plot Nos. 2577 (P), 2578, 2580 and 2581 measuring 4.81 acres standing on R.S. Khata No. 71, Khewat No. 1 situated in Mauza Kalimati within Sidhgora Police Station, Jamshedpur and was coming peaceful possession of the same.4...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »