Jharkhand Court March 2008 Judgments
Leda Chamar and ors. Vs. Shivjee Tiwari and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR587(Jhr)]
1. The order passed by the learned single Judge on 4.10.2002 clearly indicates that on the application filed by the writ petitioner, the concerned authority was directed to search out the record and Gazette notification and to start a de nevo proceeding as required under the law and conclude the same within a period of six months thereafter.2. It is stated in paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State that in pursuance of the order dated 4.10.2002 passed in CWJC No. 3304/1996R, the LRDC, Daltanganj, started de novo proceeding after serving notice on the parties concerned and that after calling for and considering the report from the Circle Officer, Chainpur, about the land in question and after hearing parties, final conclusion had been arrived at and the proceedings were dropped on 20.6.2003. As a matter of fact, the LRDC held that the landholders held 212.60 acres of land and there were ten persons eligible to be treated as family, each being entitled to r...
Tag this Judgment!Sisi Baha Topno Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC289; 2008CriLJ3346; [2008(2)JCR483(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.2007 passed by 4th AJC-cum-Special Judge, No. II, CBI (AHD), Ranch! in Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentence thereto passed by Sri R.S. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in T.R. No. 251 of 2007 arising out of Complaint Case No. 310 of 2005 was affirmed.2. Short fact of the case was that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 Prof. Janardan Prasad filed a complaint petition before the Court stating therein that he was working as Lecturer in Gossner College, Ranchi whereas petitioner was the Principal of the said College. The petitioner had earlier approached him for some personal loan and accordingly, complainant-opposite party No. 2 Prof. Janardan Prasad paid a sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- to the petitioner on 30.8.1998 in cash and the petitioner agreed to repay the said lo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanak Kumari Devi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR597(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.I.A. No. 1005 of 2008 :1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioners have prayed for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of petitioner No. 1, who died leaving behind her legal heirs, whose names and addresses have been described in Para 2. It has been stated that this application is within time.The respondents have not disputed the said contentions.Considering the above, this interlocutory applications is allowed. Let the legal heirs and representatives of the petitioner No. 1, whose details have been given in Para 2, be substituted in her place.I.A. No. 1005 of 2008 is disposed of.W.P. (C) No. 4895 of 2007:The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for quashing the order dated 22nd January, 2007 passed by the Commissioner, south Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue appeal No. 122 of 2006, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15th June, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Shankuntala Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR79(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Shankuntala Mehta, claiming herself as the President of Forest Safety Committee Tetariadih, Koderma has tiled this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation for giving a direction to the respondents not to grant any mining lease in favour of any person within Langrapara and Domchanch Protected Forest and also to declare the mining leases granted in favour of the private respondents in respect of Langraparas and Domchanch Forest Area which have been notified as Protected Forest as illegal and consequently set aside all such leases and further direct the respondents to forbear from carrying out any mining activities within the protected forest areas of Langrapara and Domchanch.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:(i) The petitioner is a President of Forest Safety Committee, Tetariadih, Koderma and the aim of the committee is to strive for the protection and preservation of the forest as well as the wildlife.(ii) There are two forest are...
Tag this Judgment!Jharkhand Public Service Commission Through Its Public Information Off ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR613(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this interlocutory application the petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer seeking quashing of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for non-compliance of the order dated 19.12.2007. It has been stated that the said notice has been issued when the petitioner had prayed for time to file writ petition against the said order. It has been stated that if the said prayer is not included in the writ petition, there will be multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties. It has been further stated that the amendment prayed for, does not in any way go to change the nature and character of the main writ petition as the relief sought to be added by way of addition is based on the same factual statements as made in the writ petition.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 contested the application stating, inter alia, that the same has no concern with the writ petition and if the amendment prayed for is allowed, the same woul...
Tag this Judgment!Harinandan Rajak Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR385(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order being Memo No. 203 dated 11.8.2003, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has been held liable for defalcation of the Government fund and refund of a sum of Rs. 28,79,904.10/- paise along with other punishment.2. During pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have modified the said order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure-9) and passed an office order being Memo No. 241 dated 2.9.2003, whereby instead of recovery of the total sum of Rs. 28,79,904.10 paise at one lump sum, recovery at first instance shall be of Rs. 14,39,952/- and the rest by way of monthly installment from the petitioner's salary.3. The petitioner filed an application (I.A. No. 2036 of 2003) for amendment in the writ petition and for addition of the prayer seeking quashing of the said order dated 2.9.2003, as well. The amendment was allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kedar Nath Mukhopadhyay and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1167]; [2008(2)JCR478(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ420Jhar
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of I.D. Case No. 169 of 2003 initiated against the petitioners including the order dated 25.2.2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioners and some others.2. As per the case of the complainant [a Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Katrasgarh, Dhanbad] an award was passed on 19.2.2001 by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in reference No. 26 of 1993 whereby Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited was directed to regularize the services of Lal Babu Singh and 17 others within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. But the petitioner No. 1 being Company Secretary and the petitioner No. 2 being the Director (P&P;) nominated owner of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and other persons responsible in terms of Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar105; [2008(2)JCR566(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge passed in WP (C) No. 746 of 2008, whereby the writ application was disposed of with certain observations directing the respondents to raise a provisional bill and after considering and deciding upon objection, if any, by the petitioner, to repare and raise the final bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and, with a further direction to restore electrical connection to the petitioner's factory premises subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 3.00 crores. The amount so deposited was made subject to final decision that may be taken by the respondents after considering the objections filed by the petitioner against the provisional bill.2. Prayer in the writ application as made by the appellant/petitioner was for directions to the respondents:1. To forthwith restore the power supply of the petitioner, which was disconnected by the respondent No. 5/7 on 1.2.2008.2. To not t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri A.i. Rebelo and anr. and Mohan Himmatsinhka and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR423(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Both the above-mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions arise out of the same impugned order and the prayer of the petitioners in both the cases are also the same and, as such, both the petitions were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Cr. Misc. No. 19706/1999, the petitioner No. 1 Shri A.I. Rebelo is the General Manager, Commercial Vehicle, Spares, Hire- Purchase and Sales Administration whereas petitioner No. 2 Shri Ratan Tata is the Director of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (TELCO). So far as Cr. Misc. No. 19846/1999 is concerned, the petitioner No. 3 is the dealer of M/s. TELCO, whereas petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of the dealership firm and petitioner No. 4 is the Works Manager of the dealer. The prayer in both the petitions is to quash the order taking cognizance dated 30th July, 1999 and also to quash the entire criminal proceeding against them in connection with PCR Case No....
Tag this Judgment!Most. Dilwa Kuer and ors. Vs. Mahipat Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR529(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendants-petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2003 whereby he has allowed the petition filed by plaintiff/respondents seeking amendment in the plaint.3. Plaint/respondents filed aforementioned partition suit for decree of partition claiming l/4th share in the suit property. In the plaint the plaintiffs prescribed themselves as Chero by caste being members of Schedule Tribe. Defendant/petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement mainly on the ground that suit for partition is not maintainable for the reason that under the customary law prevalent amongst the members of Schedule Tribe community neither the daughters nor her sons are entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »