Jharkhand Court October 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.
MuddIn Mian Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR584(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.4.2001 vide which the land recorded in the last Cadastral Survey of 1908 and Revisional Survey of 1935 has been restored to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.2. The facts in brief are stated as under:The grand father of the petitioner namely Medu Kalal purchased land of C.S. Khata No. 87, plot No. 224 with an area 7.65 acres of land from the erstwhile landlord namely late Lal Durga Pratap Nath Shah Deo on 15.3.1906 for a valuable consideration and in consequence thereto they came in possession of the entire area from the date of purchase. According to the petitioner the land was raiyati land settled with the grand father of the petitioner and the same was recorded in the name of grand father of the petitioner in Cadestral Survey of right of 1908. The land in question was Belagan in survey record of right and a rent of Rs. 4 Annas was fixed by the ...
Om Prakash Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Human ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR200(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar as party respondent No. 7 in this case.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier when it was brought to the notice of the Patna High Court in a writ application, bearing CWJC No. 6819 of 1991 that certain teachers have been illegally appointed and have been working since long, the Court, vide its order dated 23.11.1992 passed an order directing the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna to take a decision in the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the affected persons and thereupon, the Director passed an order, vide Annexure 2 whereby services of the respondent No. 6 along with others were terminated under memo No. 1389 dated 7.12.1993 but in spite of that, respondent No. 6 is still in service and aut...
Gyanchand Saw and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR15]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, wherein, inter alia, it has been observed that the representationists-cum-writ petitioners herein are not entitled to any parity of pay scale in view of the discussions, made in the aforesaid letter, and, accordingly, held that their representations deserve to be dismissed. Further prayer has been made to declare the set of rules under which the service conditions of the employees of Koderma Mica Unit of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation is to be regulated in respect of payment of salary of the petitioner or in the alternative, the petitioners have prayed to allow the pay scales at par to the similarly situated employees of the respondent-Corporation on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and further to pay the arrears of salary with effect from of March. 1986 till date as per the pol...
Mundrika Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR324(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Mundrika Prasad Singh against the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1885 of 2007 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging his dismissal from service in the year 1983, was not entertained and consequently the writ petition was dismissed.2. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner-appellant was discharging his duties as Havildar in the Railway Protection Force and was posted under South Eastern Railway Administration in Chakradharpur Division. During the employment, the petitioner-appellant remained absent from duty for a period of ten months for which a proceeding was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence. According to the respondents, notice in regard to the enquiry was duly served on him. However, the appellant-delinquent did not respond to the show cause and hence by virtue of an ex parte enquiry, the charge of unauthorized absence from duty was hel...
Vijay Prasad Saha Vs. Dilip Prasad Saha
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)JCR714; AIR2009Jhar80; 2009(2)AIR(Jhar)59; 2009AIHC2174
(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed quashing the order dated 14-06-2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Giridih in Partition suit No. 4 of 2006, refusing to accept the written statement. By filing amendment petition (I A. No. 2574 of 2008), petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29-06-06. debarring the petitioner to file written statement.(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the summons were received by him on 24-03-2006 and he appeared on 22-06-2006, but he was debarred from filing written statement on 29-06-2006, However, the same was filed on 28-07-2006 and thereafter a petition was filed on 08-02-2007 for recalling the said order dated 29-06-2006 which has been rejected on 14-06-2007.(3.) IT is submitted that if the petitioner is not allowed to file written statement, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury,(4.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned court had no option than to debar the petitioner from filing the wri...
Raj Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Birendra Prasad Gupta
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR686
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two revision applications since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In C.R. No. 40 of 2006, petitioners, who are tenants, have challenged the order dated 27.2.2006 passed by Munsif Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2002 whereby he has terminated the lease in purported exercise of power under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.3. In C.R. No. 56 of 2007 the petitioner has challenged the consequential order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the same Court in the aforementioned miscellaneous case where by he has ordered for eviction of the petitioner from the building premises under Section 18(3) of the said Act.4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.Petitioners were inducted as tenants in the shop premises for a fixed period of ten years commencing from 1.5.1992 to 30.4.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. A registered deed ...
Jhari Mahto and ors. Vs. Sagar Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR31(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since a simple question of law is involved in this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not think it necessary to hear the respondents before passing the order.2. The question of law involved is as to whether the Court of Subordinate Judge is justified in passing the impugned order dated 3.1.2008 in Title Suit No. 237 of 2007 whereby he has ordered for return of the plaint on the ground that the Court of Subordinate Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, since the suit was valued at Rs. one lac only, it comes with the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif.3. Prima facie it appears that the Court below has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed the aforementioned suit for adjudication of right, title and interest and for declaration of their possession over the suit premises and in the event plaintiffs are dispossessed, decree for recovery of poss...
Rampati Pandit and anr. Vs. Jagdish Modi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR311(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.8.2008 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Koderma in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2001. affirming the order of injunction dated 19.3.2001, passed by Munsif, Koderma in Title Suit No. 26 of 1999.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal remained pending for seven years and after dismissal of the appeal suit is pending, in which issues have been settled.4. After considering the statement of the learned Counsel, without interfering the impugned order, this application is disposed of with direction to the Munsif, Koderma to take up the aforesaid Title Suit No. 26 of 1999, conclude the hearing and deliver judgment as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order....
Birendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR602(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a writ of mandamus to issue forthwith the appointment letter to the petitioner in terms of Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 to the post of constable.2. The grounds on which the prayer has been made are that the petitioner is a Home Guard Trained Personnel and possesses all requisite qualifications and he was selected for the post of Constable after having qualified in all the test prescribed, including the Physical standards of height and chest measurements and there is no justifiable reason for denying the appointment to the petitioner when other candidates including one Raj Kumar Prasad, who does not even possess the Home Guard Training Certificate, has been given the appointment.3. The petitioner's case in brief is that an advertisement vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 was issued by the Respondents-authorities for filling up the vacant posts of constables in all the 22 districts within the State of Jharkha...
Shiv Shankar Sah Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2288; [2008(4)JCR597(Jhr)]
1. By Court The present appeal has been filed by the sole appellant Shiv Shankar Sah against the judgment dated 01/09/1990 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 173/1988, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of Renu Devi and thereby, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. The three other accused namely, Madan Lal Sah, Bina Devi and Bhuli Devi, who were tried together with the present appellant, however, have been acquitted from the charges under Section 302/34 IPC by the trial court.2. One Narayn Kumar Mukherjee (PW-3), who is a Pujari of a 'Yaga Shala', situated in Basukinath gave a Fardbeyan to O/C Jarmundi police station on 05/09/1986 stating therein that his 'Yaga Shala', where he used to reside, was situated just opposite to the house of Balgovind Sah, the father of the appellant and he was closely acquainted with all the family members of the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »