Jharkhand Court April 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.
Ritesh Singh @ Ritesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR71(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. According to the petitioner, his marriage with the complainant was solemnized in January, 2006. After marriage, the petitioner took the complainant to Mumbai, where he is employed in Raymond Apparels Ltd. They remained there and till April, 2006 there was no complaint. Again they came back to Gamharia and there the complainant stayed for some time. Again in the month of November, 2006, the complainant was taken to Mumbai where they remained for several months and returned to Gamharia in May, 2007. The complainant lodged the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Saraikela on 29th May, 2007.3. According to the petitioner, all the allegations ...
Krishna Murari Sahay (K.M. Sahay) Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR205(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ:(i) For quashing the order dated 2.9.2002 (Annexure-4) by which by way of punishment, his pay has been reduced to Rs. 5,800/- in the scale of Rs. 5800-9471 (S-9 Grade) with immediate effect.(ii) For quashing the order dated 14.11.2002 (Annexure-9), whereby the petitioner's appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed.(iii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the letter dated 2.9.2002 (Annexure 4) and the order dated 14.11.2002 (Annexure 9) and to promote the petitioner in L-10 Scale of pay.(iv) For a direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner, the deducted wages for the period between 20.10.1997 to 21.12.1997 amounting to Rs. 19,900/-.2. The facts of the case as stated briefly are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Grade-I (L-5 post) on 24.10.1978 and he was employed under the respondents-Bokaro steel Plant, Bokaro. He was promoted a...
Maheswari Oil Mills Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR724(Jhr)]
ORDERD.P. Singh, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the proceedings of arbitrary and illegal seizure dated 29.6.2005 of food grains, edible oil and other commodities without valid grounds in connection with Deoghar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005, dated 27.5.2005.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that respondent No. 2; the Executive Magistrate on 25.5.2005 visited the premises of M/s. Radhaghani Oil Mills as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and conducted a search. Further stated during search some sample of mustered oil were collected to ascertain whether the oil contained polluting chemicals or not. During the search, some inventory was prepared of items available in the premises. The informant further suspected that the items available in the shop were not procured properly. He further mentioned that the persons employed there did not get proper remuneration and there were violations of Factories Act, Minimu...
Bharat AmIn Vs. Sharad Vasati
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR47(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the question that falls for consideration is as to whether facts admitted in the pleading can be withdrawn by amendment.2. The facts of the case is that plaintiff-petitioner filed eviction suit No. 35/05 for decree of eviction in respect of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant who is a tenant has not paid rent for the month of December, 2004 and subsequently the rent for the month of January and February, 2005 has been paid and thereafter, from March, 2005 rent has not been paid. The defendant/respondent filed written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff. However, after one year defendant filed petition under Order VI. Rule 17, CPC by which he allegedly wanted to withdraw sum admission and sought to take a new defense. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the amendment petition holding that in the suit issues were not framed and the proposed amendment is necessa...
Faneshwar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR750(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner moved this Court earlier in CWJC No. 3671/1998 (R) making a grievance that by order dated 17.12.1996, his one increment was stopped whereas no such order of punishment was given to two other similarly situated persons. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 30th January, 2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, direct the respondents to pay all the retrial dues to the petitioner alongwith interest legally payable to him. When the amount of interest was not paid, the petitioner filed an application for contempt, which was registered as Contempt Case No. 1041/2002, contained in Annexure- 2. The contempt proceeding was disposed of by order dated 25.2.2005. The order passed in the contempt proceeding reads as under:Heard the counsel for the parties.Though the total dues have been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner disputes the amount of interest paid with, according to the petitioner, comes to Rs. ...
Hari Charan Mahato Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR2(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Shivnath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner who is defendant in Title Suit No. 123 of 2002 has challenged the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by Munsif, Dhanbad whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for deciding the issue of maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue.3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned suit against the defendants-petitioner, the State of Jharkhand, Deputy Commissioner and LRDC Dhanbad for declaration that the notice dated 27.7.2002 issued against the plaintiff by LRDC Dhanbad an LC case No. 32 of 1975-76 is invalid, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.4. Defendant's case is that an order of pre-emption was passed by the respondent-authority under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The right of pre-emption was allowed in revision by the Mem...
Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jeete ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar30; [2008(3)JCR42(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1st November, 2007 passed by the State Information Commissioner in Appeal No. 506 of 2007, whereby the petitioner has been asked to furnish the details, as mentioned in Item Nos. 8 and 17 of the Information sought by the applicant-Respondent No. 1 under the Right to Information Act. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 5th October, 2007 passed in the said appeal by which also the petitioners were asked to furnish the said information.2. Main grievance of the petitioners is that the information, which has been sought in the said items, is regarding disclosure of the Reserve Price fixed by the petitioners for the period 2002 to 2006 for sale of Kendu Leafs lots and minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors. According to the petitioners, the said information cannot be furnished, as the same are trade Secret and commercial confidence and disclosure will not...
Alimun Nisha Vs. Md. Sahid Ahmad
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR240(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.2006 passed by Munsif, 2nd at Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 96 of 2001 whereby he has allowed the amendment petition filed by the defendant-respondent under Order VI, Rule 17. CPC.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default and also on the ground of personal necessity.3. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. However, during the pendency of the suit the defendant filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the written statement by introducing some more paragraphs. The Court below, after hearing the parties, allowed the said amendment petition.4. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that by the proposed amendment the d...
Pawan Kumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. Ram Krishan Khandelwal and ors. and R ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR251(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendants-petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by Munsif, 1st, Dhanbad in Title suit No. 113/2006 whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.2. The plaintiffs--respondents filed the aforementioned suit for declaration that the cancellation of agreement of sale dated 16.9.2003 by legal notice dated 28.6.2005 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff and further for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from negotiating sale of flat/office.3. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendants are the owners of complex, namely, Laxami Complex in which there is multi-storied building. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to purchase one flat and contract was entered into between the parties on a consideration of Rs. 6,67,000/- with terms and conditions. The plaintiffs alleged to have paid Rs...
Pradeep Kumar Sah Vs. General Manager, South Eastern Railway and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR576(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner, which has been withheld by the respondents on a flimsy ground that there was some delay in supply of the goods.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had supplied all the goods within time. The goods were received and consumed by the respondents, but the payments have not been made for a long time without any basis. Now the respondents have taken stand that the payments were withheld, as the goods were not supplied in time. It has been stated by the petitioner that if the respondents had any difficulty to accept the delivery of goods, they should have returned the same then and there and, therefore, should have no occasion for any dispute, but the respondents having accepted the delivery of goods and consumed the same cannot now turn around and deny the payment of the said goods. It has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »