Jharkhand Court March 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.
Rita Singh @ Rita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR421(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the informant. The petitioner is an accused in Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2008 registered under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner aged about 65 years who happened to be the mother-in-law of the deceased though has been alleged to have subjected the deceased to cruelty to the extent that the deceased committed suicide but the entire allegation is false and that marriage had taken place 13 years ago and the deceased was having two sons aged about 11 years and 10 years and they in their statements have not said anything about the deceased being subjected to torture by the petitioner and, as a matter of fact, one day before the occurrence while one of the sons of the deceased was being scolded by the deceased he got angry and assaulted her mother and i...
S.N. Roy and anr. Vs. Bharat Bouri and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR432(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.3.2006 passed by Sub-Judge VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 45 of 1990, whereby petition filed under Order I, Rule 10, CPC by the intervenor has been allowed for impleading him as party in the suit.2. The plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 8 filed Title Suit No. 45 of 1990 against the defendants-petitioners in the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad for declaration that the plaintiffs have perfected their right over the suit property and further for a declaration that the defendants-petitioners have got no right to disturb peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners by filing written statement stating inter alia that the father of the petitioners acquired the suit land by four registered documents of ...
Serajul Sheikh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR484(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the entire proceeding of CCA Case No. 2 of 2007 including the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 7.4.2007, the order of the State Government granting approval of the detention of the petitioner dated 17.4.2007 as also the order dated 10.5.2007 whereby and where-under the Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention of the petitioner under Sections 21(1) and 22 of the Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur under Section 12(2) of Bihar (Jharkhand) Control of Crimes Act, 1981 with the consequential relief by recording the order for the release of the petitioner Serajul Sheikh.2. The petitioner has challenged the orders on the ground that it were violative of Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Sections 12, 17 and 23 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Control of Crimes Act.3. The short fact of the case was that the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur initiate...
Ramavatar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR428(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant though has been convicted for the offences under Section 120B read with 420/409/467/468/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code and also separately for the said offences as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded maximum sentence for six years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant being proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Agency took payment without supplying the medicine to the Animal Husbandry Department but the appellant was never the proprietor of the said firm known as M/s. Tirupati Agency, rather proprietor of the said firm is one Rajendra Sharma and the reason for prosecuting the appellant is that certain documents concerning with the firm bear the name of R. Sharma and the appellant has been tak...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Multi Tech Auto Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2008]301ITR73(Jharkhand); [2008(2)JCR433(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is IT. (SS) No. 26/PAT/2Q06 for the assessment year, block period 1.4.1987 to 21.10.1997, whereby the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.2. It appears that a search and seizure was carried put under the provision of Section 131(1) of the Income Tax in the premises of the respondent-assessee and associated persons including Director of the Company. In course of search, some floppy and its print out along with other papers were found. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 1,69,20,143/-. Out of these, addition of Rs. 92,31,664/- was made on the basis of seized documents and Rs. 63,88,479/- was added on account of information contained in floppy referred to as floppy mal account and an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- was made from credit entry in the account of M/s. Shyam Engi...
Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Bi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR659(Jhr)]; (2008)18VST333(Jharkh)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Limited has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaration that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot call for and examine the record of any appellate proceeding for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or proprietory of the appellate order in exercise of power vested under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act and further for quashing the entire revision proceeding in Revision Case No. C.C.(s) No. 500/98-99 including the order dated 16.2.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,- Bihar, Patna for the period 1987-98 by which he had initiated proceeding suo motu under Section 46(4) of the Act.2. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass:Petitioner is a Government of India Undertaking and registered dealer under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (in short Act of 1981) and also under Section 7 of the Central Sales Act, 1956 (...
Deenanath Prasad and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR430(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned APP appearing for the State. The petitioners, who are accused for offence under Sections 341, 323, 386, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(i)(x)(viii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pray for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of their arrest in connection with SC and ST P.S. Case No. 4 of 2008.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' daughter was married to the complainant in the year 1995 and both the petitioners as well as complainant lived happily together at the place of the posting of the complainant and lastly they stayed at Bombay till 2002 and during these periods, one child begotten out of their wedlock, but in the year 2003, when the daughter of the petitioners became fed up with the torture meted to her she came to her parents' house and lodged a case, which was instituted under Section 49...
Chandra Prakash Singh Vs. the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR448(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute existing between the petitioner and the respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. and the Managing Director of the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. with regard to the adjustment of the payment made by the petitioner as per the lease deed dated 23.11.2000.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:(i) The Managing Director of Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. granted the lease of cold storage, namely, Janta Cold Storage to the petitioner for running the Cold Storage situated at Ratu in the district of Ranchi by virtue of the lease deed dated 23.11.2000 for the period of 11 years.(ii) Thereafter, the possession was given to the petitioner after payment of security amount etc. as per the agreement. The agreement dated 23.11.2...
Arbind Kumar Tiwari Vs. Mahadeb Sen
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR429(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the appellant/defendant on the ground of default as well as on the ground of personal necessity. The trial Court as also the lower appellate Court have discussed the evidences on the basis of facts revealed that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months and likewise the ground of personal necessity of the suit premises has been adequately made out. Finding on the issue of partial eviction has also been recorded in the judgment of the trial Court, which has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant would try to raise a few questions of law stating that the plaintiff had accepted, rent for the month of November 2003 and, therefore, it has to be deemed that he has waived his right to seek eviction on the ground of default for non-payment of rent for t...
Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR431(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier, considering the merit of the case, the petitioner was granted bail, but he could not appear before the Court below, as he had gone out for earning his livelihood; he was thus apprehended and sent to jail; he was again granted bail, but again he could not appear in the Court below on the date fixed and his bail bond was cancelled, it has been submitted that there was no wilful absence and the petitioner could not appear before the Court below under the compelling circumstance. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted bail but due to absence of one day's, he was against apprehended and sent to jail on 16th October, 2007, and since that he has been languishing in jail custody. It has been submitted that the petitioner has never misused the privilege of bail willfully, rather...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »