Jharkhand Court November 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.
Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: AIR2010Jhar7; [2009(1)JCR181(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandrajeet Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In the Instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is defendant, has challenged the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the Petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the written statement.3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned eviction suit for a decree of eviction of the defendant-pentioner from the suit premises. The defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement denying the grounds for eviction set forth in the plaint. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed application on 17.3.2008 seeking amendment of the written statement. The proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner is quoted herein below:After para 17 of the written statement the foll...
Tulsidas Patel and ors. Vs. Md. Shafique and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR187(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the sole question that falls for consideration is as to whether the executing Court was justified in rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that execution case is not barred by limitation.2. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 58/85 and obtained ex parte decree on 5.12.1987. The contesting defendant alter having come to Know about the ex parte decree filed application under Order IX, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside ex parte decree which was registered as Misc.Case No. 6/88. During the pendency of the miscellaneous case, since there was no stay of the execution of the decree, respondent-decree holder filed Execution Case No. 10/89 for obtaining delivery of possession. Since the decree holder did not take any step in the said execution pro...
Dhupal Mahto and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR397(Jhr)]
Jaya Roy, J.1. The instant Criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 10.1.2005 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Vaish, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 94 / 2002 affirming the order dated 20.3.2002 passed by Sri Jagdeo Kumar Oraon, Executive Magistrate, Barhi in case No. 46/96 corresponding to T.R. No. 19 of 2002.2. Brief facts of the instant case is that on a police report dated 22.7.96 forwarded to the court of Executive Magistrate, Barhi District Hazaribagh on which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was stated against both the parties in which state was also the first party and upon receiving notice the parties concerned appeared and filed their respective show cause and both the parties had claimed their possession upon the disputed land. The said proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 28.9.96. and as such a fresh notice under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was ...
Akhouri Akhileshwari Charan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR193(Jhr)]
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.1980, passed by respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Case No. 139 of 1977-78, the order dated 29.9.1981, passed by respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 17R15 of 1980-81 and also the order dated 25.8.1988, passed by respondent No. 2 in Revenue Revision No. 133 of 1981, as contained in Annexures 8, 9 and 11 respectively, vide which the lands measuring an area of 8.70 Acres out of Plot Nos. 2511, 3274, 3335, 3340, 3483, 3484, 3485, 3486, 3487, 3488, 3490, 3536 and 3481, appertaining to Khata No. 67, situated at ViUage-Thethaitangar was restored under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act in favour of Sahru Gond, father of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein.2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:There was a registered surrender as contained in Annexure-1 by the raiyat in favour of the zamindar and vide Annexure-2 settlement has been made on 2.4.1942 by the zamindar to the prede...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramjee Pandey and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2301; AIR2009Jhar77; [2009(1)JCR145(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 23rd January, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No. 32 of 1997 whereby he has awarded compensation and held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the same.2. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent-applicant Ramjee Pandey filed a compensation case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of his wife Rameshwari Devi. The accident took place on 08.4.1996 on Bokaro-Ramgarh Road where she was dashed by a truck bearing Registration No. BR-13H/9259. Besides other facts, it was mentioned in the application that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and was valid from 24.3.1996 to 23.3.1997. The applicant's further case was that the deceased was a housewife and was managing the affairs of the house. Due to death of the deceased, applicant has been...
Parikha Mehta @ Parikha Prasad Mehta and anr. and Satendra Yadav Vs. S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR201(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Both anticipatory bail applications are heard together as both arise out of the same case.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State in both the applications.3. Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 1983 of 2008 explains that the present case against the petitioners is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, the petitioners are made accused only because of the fact that they are the contractors to whom the road construction work was allotted by way of tender. The petitioners after having, obtained the work contract, had given the same on sub-contract to other persons namely Satendra Yadav and Manoj Kumar Singh, the petitioners of A.B.A. No. 1387 of 2008. It is further explained that the work of construction of the road was supposed to be carried out by filling Morum Soil and supply of Morum Soil for the road construction work was entrusted to the co-accused Rejendra Yadav. As has...
Sandhu Munda and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR202(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 2.7.2002, passed by Smt. Sheela Kisku Rapaj, the Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranch! in S.A.R. Revision No. 356 of 1995.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer and argument to the sole issue as to whether the land, in question, is Mundari Khunt-katti land or not for the purposes of imposing restriction on transfer, as provided under Section 240 followed by order of ejectment under Section 242 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the C.N.T. Act').3. In the instant case, the concurrent finding of fact by all the three authorities is against the petitioners, which is sought to be assailed in the present writ petition. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that the land under Khata No. 13, in dispute, is a raiyatt land and belongs to their ancestor. It...
Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara Vs. Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR166(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner (since retired) while was posted as Head of the Post Graduate Department in Urdu, Ranchi University has filed this writ application wherein promotion of respondent No. 5 as Reader with effect from 21.2.1988 and also to the post of University Professor with effect from 17.3.1994 under the scheme of time bound promotion has been challenged.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner having been appointed on the post of Lecturer in Urdu in Ranchi University was posted in the Ranchi Women's College where she was working as Lecturer on temporary basis and in course of time, she was promoted to the post of Reader under time bound scheme on completion of 10 years of service with effect from 1.2.1985 Subsequently, she, in the year 2002, was declared as senior most teacher of Urdu and was transferred to Post Graduate Department of Urdu, Ranchi University as Head of the Post Graduate Department of Urdu. However, in the year 2003, respondent No. 5 was dec...
State of Bank of India Vs. Rani Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR312(1)(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner-State Bank of India seeks review of the Order dated 22.6.2006 passed by a Bench of this Court in W. P. (S) No. 5314 of 2005 whereby, while disposing of the writ petition, a direction was issued to the Bank to consider the documents and on the basis of the same if it is found that marriage with the deceased-employee was not solemnised within the service, the respondent should process for family pension and the bank shall settle the same within a period of three months.2. It is contended that the marriage was not solemnised in the year 1995 which necessitated the filing of this review application.3. In may opinion, on the aforesaid ground the order cannot be reviewed. The direction was given to process the family pension on submission of proof by the respondent-wife only when it is found that the marriage of. the petitioner was not solemnised during service.4. In that view of the matter, there is no question of reviewing of impugned order.5. This Civi...
Yashwant Sharan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR162(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. The petitioners were appointed as Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1983/84. In course of time, cadre of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was merged with the cadre of General Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1989 whereby common seniority list was prepared. Subsequently, these petitioner were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 20.8.1994. Meanwhile, persons of the category of General Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, juniors to the petitioners, were alsb given promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on ad hoc basis. Thereupon, some of those Sub-Inspectors of Police moved to the Patna High Court for a direction to the respondent to confirm them on the said post and the Patna High Court directed the authorities to confirm them on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and accordingly, their services were confirmed on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police whereas these petitioners and others who ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »