Jharkhand Court May 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.
Kuldip Mahto and Kali Charan Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR5(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally. As both the cases are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner In both the cases claim that they should be declared as Headmaster after completion of 7 years from the date of take over of the school i.e. in the case of writ petltioner-Kuldip Mahto from 31.12.1988 and in the case of writ petitioner-Kali Charan Choudhary from 5.7.1990, In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : (1998)2SCC411 , A.K. Pradhan v. State of Bihar and Ors.3. Mr. Pan, appearing for the writ petitloner-Kuldip Mahto and Mr. Anwar, appearing for writ petitloner-Kall Charan Choudharyt submitted that petitioners had the requisite qualification i.e. M.A., B.Ed, prior to the taking over of their schools. They further submitted that petitioners are working as Incharge Headmaster since the date of recognition/take over of the schools. In case of Kuldip Mahto, Mr. Pan relied on the order dated 9.3.1999 passed In CWJC No. 6291...
Md. Awhab and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR3(Jhr)]
1. Heard the parties.2. The facts which emerges from the pleading of the parties are that Seikh Mehralli was granted lease of the lands comprising 15 Bighas 12 Katha 5 Dhurs situated in the District of Deoghar by the then Ghatwal of Pathrol Estate on 30.5.1900. According to the writ petitioners/appellants, Seikh Mehralli continued to be in possession so long he was alive and after his death, the petitioners, being the heirs of Seikh Mehralli, are continuously in possession of the property in question including the Marble House standing over the said property.3. According to the respondents, Seikh Mehralli, was a tenure holder, granted raiyati settlement in favour of E.M. Floyd by registered deed of lease dated 15.11.1990 with right to construct house. Said E.M. Floyd sold the said land to Henry David Bonzamine on the same day and subsequently, the said property was purchased by the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 by virtue of the registered deed. According to the respondents, since the ancesto...
Bar Association Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR1(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This PIL relates to opening of National Law School in the capital city (Ranchi) of State of Jharkhand. The initiative for opening of five years degree course Law School has been taken in 2006 and the Birla Institute of Technology (in short 'BIT') Mesra, Ranchi was requested to provide land and building, so that without waiting any further, session for five years degree course could be started. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was also executed by and between the authority of the BIT and the Government and three men core committee was also constituted by the Government of Jharkdiand vide notification dated 10.4.2006.2. A copy of the said memorandum has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the BIT.3 From perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent BIT Mesra, it is evident that the Institute agreed to give full cooperation by allotting land, building and other infrastructure for opening of the National Law School, but unfortunately, the St...
Shanti Endhan Through Its Proprietor Ratish Kumar Singh Vs. Bharat Cok ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR4(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 31.7.2007/3.8.2007 and 16.10.2007 whereby the respondents have communicated two deficiencies and on the basis thereof have concluded that the petitioner's unit is not established and declined to allocate linkage of coal to the petitioner. It has been stated that out of the 13 point information required for evaluating the unit as established, information furnished on 11 points with the supporting documents were found to the satisfaction of the respondents. The information on remaining two points is said to be not sufficient as it is said that the audited account submitted by the petitioner has not been signed by the petitioner's authorized signatory and the sales tax A/C number of the seller of the machines installed in the petitioner's unit has not been furnished. It has been stated that in the required information on 19 points, the sales tax number of the seller was not requir...
Malti Devi and anr. Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR6(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal will be heard on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court on the issue of plaintiffs' title and decreeing the suit as a full fledged title suit, although the plaintiffs' suit was originally for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, is perverse?(ii) Whether on amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, the defendants were not given any opportunity to defend and file their additional written statement and, if so, whether the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court on the basis of the amended plaint can be sustainable in law?(iii) Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court on the defendants' case of adverse possession was based on an erroneous consideration of the evidence and materials on record and therefore perverse?(iv) Whether the suit is barred under Section 65 of the Limitation Act and the finding o...
Surinder Singh Sahni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR7(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ application filed by way of public interest litigation, petitioner has made the following prayers:(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the provisions of Section 3(1)(f)(ii) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA' as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.(ii) For issuance of a writ commanding upon the State of Jharkhand and Union of India to make protective arrangement with respect to Sick Small Scale Industries similar to the benefit under Section 22 of the SICA extended to companies/undertakings as defined under Section 3 of the Act.(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ for conscionable justice to the small scale industries established within the State of Jharkhand.2. Briefly stated, the issue raised by the petitioner is that exclusion of Small Scale Industrial Unit from the definition of Industrial Undertaking under Section 3(1)(f)(ii) of the Sick Industrial Compa...
Smt. Madhuri Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Dumka Division and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR179(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge whereby the writ application filed by the petitioners vide CWJC No. 3735 of 1986 was dismissed.2. Prayer in the writ application, as made by the petitioner, was that pursuant to the order dated 24th January, 1979 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka in R.E. Case No. 121/71-72, the land under reference in this case was declared as Ferari (abandoned) land and direction was issued to settle the same with the landless Scheduled Tribe Jamabandi Raiyats. A further prayer was made for quashing the order dated 10.7.1981 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dumka whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 22/29.5.1986 (Annexure-6) passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka was dismissed.3. The case of the p...
Ratia Uraon and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR184(Jhr)]
1. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1997 and 3.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in S.T. No. 790 of 1993 by which the appellant No. 1 Ratia Uraon has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2 Bandhu Uraon has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the appellants sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that PW 1, the informant has left his house for pole factory in early morning at 5 a.m. on 2.6.1990. However, at about 6.30 a.m. his wife PW 2 arrived at the pole factory with lunch to inform him that she saw some villagers planning something against his father who has gone to the field to tend bullocks. The informant anticipating danger came out of the pole factory to see that the appellants alongwith seven others were going towards the place of occurrence, field of Bhojna Muriari. The informant having seen th...
Shiv Shankar Vs. Vinoba Bhave University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR193(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. U.K. Shikarwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was admitted in B.Sc. (Hon's) for the session 1990-93 in Bokaro Steel City College under Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. In 1992, he failed in Part I examination. In 1993 also, he could not appear in the examinations of Part I and II. However, in the examination of Part I held in January, 1994, he passed on 10.6.1994 but he was allowed to sit in examination for Part II in May 1994. He passed Part II examination on 10.8.1994 and then he took part in Part III examination in September 1994, which he passed in December 1994. The Provisional pass certificate and Migration certificate were issued in 1995. Thereafter, he got LLB degree from Bhagalpur University and is continuing with his LLM course. When he applied for enrolment with Bar Council, the original Graduation Certificate was asked for. Accordingly, petitioner requested for original Graduation Certificate from University. The Un...
Tupla Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR565]; [2008(3)JCR566(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to fix monthly pension and to pay the same with effect from 31st August, 2001 and to release the arrears of pension payable to him with effect from the said date with statutory interest. He has further rayed for quashing the letter dated 20th August, 2003, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit the sum of Rs. 63,056/- (rupees sixty three thousand fifty six) in pension fund to get his monthly pension. Alternatively, he has also prayed for refund of the fund deposited in his C.M.P.F. Account No. D/419532.2. According to the petitioner, he was the member of the C.M.P.F., being Account No. D/419532. He retired from the services of the Central Coalfields Ltd., Rajrappa on 31st August, 2001 from the post of Timber Mistry G.M.(R)'s Unit E/M (TS), Rajrappa Area. The petitioner, on retirement, submitted his claim for gratuity, C.M.P.F., pension etc. within a fortnight of his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »