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.
Khedan Hazam and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR344(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21.6.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. IV Bokaro in S.T. No. 453 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court below dismissed their petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and refused to discharge them.2. The prosecution story in short was that on 6.6.2006 when the accused Guleshwar Thakur was digging foundation 6' inside the land of the informant which was earlier measured and a pillar was installed, the informant opposed, as a result of which he was assaulted by Guleshwar Thakur and his associates. It was alleged in the fardbeyan that Guleshwar Thakur attacked on the informant with shovel to which when he attempted to ward of such attack, he sustained injury on his left temporal. The accused Shukar Thakur assaulted with rod and other accused persons inflicted blow with sticks as a result of which he sustained in his legs a...
Himanshu Sekhar Vs. Kumar Mahesh Chandra and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR336(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by Sub-Judge-II. Ranchi in Title Suit No. 191 of 2004 by which plaintiff's petition for amendment of plaint, filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been allowed.2. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 191/04 in the Court of Sub-Judge-II, Ranchi for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 22.8.1998 and for a direction to the defendant No. 1 to execute the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and further for a declaration that the deed of sale dated 13.3.2004 executed in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.3. Plaintiffs case was that defendant No. 1, being in acute need of money, agreed to sale the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees One lakh ten thousand) and entered into an agreement after receiving ...
Shambhu Nath Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR441a(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, a registered owner of a building standing over 2 kathas 8 chhatakas of land, situated at Jagatpal Sahay Street within Ward No. 3 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, has challenged the order dated 4.6.2007, contained in Annexure-14 to the writ application, whereby the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ranchi, has rejected his prayer tode-requisition the said building premises under the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter called as the B.B.C. Act for the sake of convenience).3. The facts in short for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows:Municipal Survey Plot Nos. 1138 and 1139 corresponding to Municipal holding Nos. 1105 and 1106, was owned and possessed by M/s. Ranchi Jamindari Limited, a Company established by Raja Baldeo Das Birla, which, subsequently, came in possession of M/s. Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Limited. M/s. R...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. Through Its Chairman and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR632(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. In this writ petition, the order dated 9.4.2003 (Annexure-7) was challenged by the petitioner, by which his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that his name does not appear in the official records of the ex-employee.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on service excerpts, PS-3 Form and also subsequent orders passed on 24.5.2006 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Hazaribagh under payment of Gratuity Act to show that he is the son of ex-employee.4. Mr. Ananda Sen, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted as follows. The respondents are required to go by the service records of ex-employee. Petitioner's name did not find place in the service records. The endorsement made at the bottom of the service excerpts to the effect that petitioner was son of the ex-employee, appears to have been made afterwards as there is no counter signature of any competent authority ...
Employer in Relation to the Management of Lohapatti Colliery of Bharat ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR626(Jhr)]
1. The appellant-Management filed a writ petition, challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the tribunal held that the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge proved and set aside the order of dismissal, directing reinstatement of the workman with 50% of the back wages as measure of punishment.2. Learned single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the award passed by the tribunal, dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the award. Hence, this appeal.3. While the appeal was entertained, this Court thought it fit to admit the same only on the question of payment of back wages even to the extent of 50 per cent and ordered for issuance of notice to the respondent-workman. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent.4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Management, would cite various authorities to show that direction for payment of either full back wages or 50% of the back wages at ...
Hari Narayan Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR631(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners, who retired from service on 31.1.1999 as Store Keeper from the office of Executive Engineer, irrigation Mechanical Division, Deo-ghar, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to make payment of the entire retiral benefits, including G.P.F. amount for the period from 1963 to 1995 and difference of salary for the period from 1.1.1996. His further prayer is to re-fix the final pension after giving him the benefit on revision of pay with effect from 1.1.1996.2. By filing counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1733 of 2003 and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, held on 1.8.2004, the petitioner was given a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,46,861/- towards the amount of Group Insurance, final G.P.F. for the period from 1.9.1995 to 31.1.1999, leave salary and duty pay for the pe...
Sujit Kumar Baskey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR342(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondents/authority to pay Post Retiral Benefits which is payable to the employee, such as Family Pension, Gratuity. Group Insurance cheme. Encashment of unused Earned Leave and General Provident Fund with up to date interest and the applicant also prays for a direction upon the respondents/authority to pay Penal Interest in Bank rate for deliberately delaying from the date of death of his mother to actual date of payment.3. The petitioner's mother died on 15.2.2004 in harness. The grievance of the petitioner is that up till now the death-cum-retiral benefit of his mother has not been paid to him in spite of the fact that he has already submitted the succession certificate.4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it ...
Gajendra Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. S. Biswas, Chairman-cum-managing Di ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR634(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The petitioners have filed this contempt application, praying for initiating the contempt proceedings as against the opposite parties for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 5.4.2004.2(A). According to the petitioners, they were appointed in the year 1972 as L.D. Assistants. The promotion was given to the employees in U.D./Accounts Clerk as per existing vacancies. However, no promotion was given to the petitioners at the relevant time. They were already in Assistant Grade II when they were given Industrial Scale. Although computer staff were promoted after completion of 6 years of service, the petitioners were given promotion only after 8 years without monetary benefits. Therefore, they approached the High Court and filed writ petition. Ultimately the writ petition was allowed giving the following directions:(i) The petitioners have to be promoted to Input/ Output Clerk and consequently their seniority vis-a-vis Assistant Grade II has to ...
Dineshwar Prasad Sah @ Shah Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR467(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant who is one of the several petitioners in the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 161 of 2005, has failed the instant appeal against the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.2. Challenge in the writ petition was made against the order contained in Memo No. 763 dated 30.6.2005 passed by District Education Establishment Committee issued under the seal and signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, whereby petitioner/appellant and his co-petitioners were removed from service.3. Facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner and a few other persons had obtained appointment as Assistant Teachers on temporary basis in the year 1981-82. Two years later i.e. in the year 1984 their service were terminated on the ground that their appointments were illegal. Petitioner and all similarly situated persons filed writ applications before the Patna High Court and moved up to the Supreme Court. The writ...
Baldeo Sao Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR347(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.2. The instant Revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 22.6.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 7th, Giridih, whereby the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC and the corresponding sentences in respect of the said offences has been confirmed.3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner while pointing out the certain paragraphs of the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court submits that the petitioner had preferred the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court but the lower appellate Court had dismissed the appeal for purported non-prosecution and without hearing the petitioner at all and the appeal has not been disposed of by allowing adequate opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.4. Learned Counsel for the State concedes that from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »