Jharkhand Court January 2008 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.
Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR424(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 498 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of his arrest in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 59 of 2006.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the informant as well as other accused persons including father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (devar), though have been alleged to have subjected the informant to torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, but the entire allegation is false and that according to the case of the prosecution, the marriage took place on 19.2.2005 in between the petitioner and the informant and after living three days at the place of his parents, this petitioner and the informant went to Bombay and ther...
Bhola Thakur Vs. Sarwan Kumar Thakur and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR647(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. This appeal by special leave, filed by the appellant, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.7.1995 passed in Cr Appeal No. 14 of 1990 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents against their conviction for the offences under Sections 379/34 of the IPC as made by the trial Court, was set aside and they were acquitted from the charges for the said offence. Special Leave for filing this appeal was allowed on 2.11.1995.2. Shri A.K. Kashyap, Advocate, has appeared for the appellant, while Shri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, has appeared for the respondents.3. The case before the trial Court was initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the present appellant on 26.10.1988 against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant, who was the owner of a piece of land under plot No. 433 under khata No. 18 situated at village Harbhonga under Chalnpur Police Station within the Distr...
Chaitan Soren Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR422(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Head the parties finally.2. Petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal passed in the departmental proceedings by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority being orders dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure-1), 2.7.1996 (Annexure-2) and 12.12.1997 (Annexure-3).3. The petitioner was charged of escaping from his duty from 7.30 p.m. on 2.6.1989 without permission. The further charge was that about 30-35 villagers brought the petitioner in drunken condition at 1 a.m. in the same night total that petitioner trespassed into the house of Hurni Devi and caught her hand with bad intention, due to which she awoke and raised alarm. On the fardbeyan of Hurni Devi, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 61/1989, dated 3.6.1989 was registered under Section 448/354, IPC, in which charge-sheet was submitted. On notice, petitioner filed his show cause. The charges were of dereliction of duty and moral turpitude, due to which the image of police department w...
Chamru Oraon and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR423(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In all the writ petitions similar issue has been raised and as such with the consent of the parties, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order whereby the Superintendent of Police, Wireless has sought to recover the amount allegedly paid in excess by the department to the petitioners. The petitioners have stated that the amount has been paid to them by the order of the competent authority of the department by way of pay protection. The respective personal pay of the petitioners was fixed at the suitable scale as the juniors were getting higher pay scale. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners in getting the said enhanced pay. There was no illegality in fixing their pay and there is no excess payment, as has been alleged in the impugned order.3. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submi...
Gauri Gautam Construction Private Ltd. Through Its Director Vs. State ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR611(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that without giving the details of deviations, the Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur (respondent Nos. 3-5) have directed the petitioner to remove the deviations within 48 hours with the warning that if the deviations are not removed, the same shall be demolished by the said respondents and the cost of demolition shall be realized from the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said building was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there is no deviation. If the respondents find any such deviation, they should have specifically pointed out the same to the petitioner in writing. The petitioner does not understand as to which portion of the building is deviation and is unable to comply with the order due to its vagueness and unless the deviation is clearly pointed out. It has been submitted that in case of certain deviation even there is provision for rectification of the plan by realis...
Sri Ganesh Chaudhary Vs. Jagdish Choudhary and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR612(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. I.A. No. 2844 of 2007 has been filed by the appellant, praying for substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased--Respondent No. 1 and another petition vide I.A. No. 3232 of 2007 has been filed with a prayer for injunction.2. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant explains that the Respondent No. 1, namely, Jagdish Choudhary has died on 6.2.2004.4. The instant appeal was filed in the Patna High Court, where Shri B.N. Bariyar, Advocate was engaged to entertain the appeal and this fact was communicated to him by the appellant with instructions to take appropriate action for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased-Respondent No. 1, namely, Jagdish Choudhary but the appellant was not aware as to whether necessary steps was taken properly or not by the learned Counsel. Later the case was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court and it was only then in course of verification o...
Pradeep Singh Vs. R.i.T. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR609(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. As prayed, Mr. R. Krishna is permitted to delete respondents No. 6 and 7 from the Cause Title.2. Petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 5, Rupak Kumar as Workshop Superintendent. Pursuant to an advertisement made by Regional Institute of Technology now National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (N.I.T. for short) for filling up various posts including the post of Workshop Superintendent, several persons including respondent No. 5 and petitioner applied. The qualifications/eligibility criteria for the post of Workshop Superintendent reads as follows:(1) Workshop Supdt: B.Sc Degree in Mechanical Engineer or Electrical Engineering preferably the former with 5 years' experience of Workshop practice in a responsible capacity in a Major Industry and ability to organise a workshop for an Institute of Technology, or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering with 10 years' Experience of Workshop practice in a responsible capacity i...
Tata Steel Limited and Shree Bala Ganpati Vilas and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR613(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In these writ petitions almost similar prayers have been made and as such both the writ petitions have been taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. In WP (C) No. 143/08 the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding upon the respondents to ensure that there will be no breach of peace as well as the violation of the order dated 24.12.1007 passed by the respondent No. 4 in Miscellaneous Case No. 909/07 in respect of New Plot No. 1866 under Khata No. 85, Ward No. 3 of Jamshedpur Notified area Committee commonly known as Puja Maidan. In WP(C) No. 121/08 the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to take appropriate action to ensure that no construction will be made in the name of any samadhi or Memoriam at Ganesh Puja Maidan at New Plot 1866 (P), Khata No. 85, Ward No. 3 within Jamshed-pur Notified Area Committee over which religious function and Mela are being held over the said land during the occasio...
Asit Baran Modak Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR709]; [2008(3)JCR324(Jhr)]; (2008)IILLJ550Jhar
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Asit Baran Modak, the petitioner herein, claiming that he was working as a workman in the Deoghar Satsangh, the respondent herein, on being aggrieved over his termination, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Deoghar for adjudication. By the award dated October 6,2001, the Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that it is not an industrial dispute as the respondent is not an industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. The terms of reference which was framed by the Labour Court is as follows:(i) Does Deoghar Satsangh come under the definition of Industry as per the Industrial Disputes Act?(ii) If yes, whether the termination of service of Asit Baran Modak is justified?(iii) If not, whether Modak is entitled to reinstatement or compensation?3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1967 by Satsangh and w...
Ram Kishore Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR437(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the Incharge Principal, Government Polytechnic, Ranchi to release the amount of Rs. 73,546/- in favour of the petitioner which has been wrongly and arbitrarily deducted from the amount of his gratuity and also to pay the arrear of his salary for the month of February 2000. The petitioner has also prayed for interest on the said dues. It has been stated that the said amount has been arbitrarily deduced as the house rent whereas no quarter was even allotted to the petitioner during his sendee period.2. The petitioner retired in the year 2002, but during his service period he was not paid his salary for the month of February 2000. The said respondent has arbitrarily deducted the amount of Rs. 73,546/- on the pretext of realization of the arrears of house rent, whereas no quarter was ever allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner made representation before the concerned authority and the Additional S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »