Jharkhand Court June 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.
Himanshu Bhushan Paul Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR602(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him including the order dated 28.6.1995, passed by Shri P.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder summons were directed to be issued against him and two others, the Court having been found a prima facie case for the alleged offence under Sections 426/500/504 of the Indian Penal Code against them in Complaint Case No. 378 of 1994.2. The brief fact of the case, as it stands narrated in the complaint case was that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 Bimal Das Gupta was the Executive Director of M/s Ranchi Cement Industries Private Ltd. having its registered office at Birendra Niketan, Peace Road, Lalpur, Ranchi. The said industry was proposed to be set up at Ranchi in the year 1986 and therefore, one Sudhendu Kumar Dutta was made the Chairman of the said industry...
Teharat HussaIn Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC673; [2008(3)JCR707(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner who was complainant filed Cr. M.P. No. 1144 of 2007 before this Court against the judgment dated 17.4.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Hazaribagh, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and affirmed the conviction under Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the trial Court. The petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by that part of the order of the appellate Court whereby accused persons were acquitted from the charges under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act accordingly, the complainant filed Cr. M.P. No. 1144 of 2007 for grant of leave to file an appeal against the acquittal beyond the period of limitation. Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 on the points of limitation matter and by order dated 19.9.2007, the petitioner was directed...
Laxman Balmuchu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR152(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. According to the case of the petitioner, the post of 'Manki' and 'Munda' are hereditary and the eldest son of the family is selected for the said post with the approval of the 16th annaes raiyat.3. The Government of Jharkhand by issue of Annexure-1 dated 6.5.2004, issued an order/circular making a provision to pay honorarium to all such 'Manki', 'Munda' and 'Dakua' w.e.f. 15.11.2000, i.e. from the date of creation of the State of Jharkhand. According to the said circular, 'Manki', 'Munda' and 'Dakua' of the village should be paid honorarium @ Rs. 1500/- @ Rs. 1000/- and @ Rs. 500/- p.m. respectively w.e.f. 15.11.2000.4. On account of death of 'Munda' namely Baidyanath Tiria of the Village Sosopi, the petitioner was appointed as 'Joridar Munda' of the said village by issue of order dated 14.5.1982 by the Deputy Commis-sioner-cum-...
Sanika Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR560(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Village Chowkidar which he was holding in the year 1980.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Chowkidar in Village Daranda-Tetra of Bit No. 4/4 under Police Station Lapung, District Ranchi in the year 1971 and discharged his duty to the full satisfaction of the authorities until 1980. When a case (G.R. No. 554 of 1980) was registered against him under Section 147/148/149/302/201 of Indian Penal Code, he was taken into custody. However, after being released on bail, when the petitioner came to join his duty, he was informed that he has been dismissed from service. Upon it, the petitioner met with several authorities and tried to convince them that he has been falsely implicated and as such they assured that as soon as he is acquitted, he will be reinstated...
Madan Kumar and Raj Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Secretar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2477; [2008(4)JCR173(Jhr)]
1. Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to hold inquiry with regard to the admission of the students in B.Ed. course in different colleges of Ranchi University in violation and disregard of the established selection processes and Rules for the academic session 2006-07.2. Petitioners had applied for admission in B.Ed. course in Ranchi University for the academic session 2006-07 by fulfilling eligibility and criteria required for such admission. Petitioner No. 1 claimed having equal point to the other selected students but his case was not considered for admission in the B.Ed. course. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 had higher points but his case was also not considered though, the students having lower points were selected which caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners. Having come to know about the irregularities in the admission process for...
Mahendra Prasad Sao Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR407(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner Mahendra Prasad Sao has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the impugned order dated 23.7.2003 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Rev. No. 40 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Giridih in Case No. 911 of 1984 corresponding to T.R. No. 336 of 1988 on 27.5.1992 in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was set aside.2. The petitioner had presented a written complaint before the Village sarpanch on 26.4.1987 stating, inter alia, that a Durga Mandap was situated at village Mandardih where the idol of Goddess Durga used to be installed on every Chaitra month of the year for worship with devotion and on that eve, a fair also used to be organized, attended by people of far away villages. It was further narrated that after completion of Durga Puja the idol of Goddess Durga used to be ca...
Bhupesh Kumar Sah Vs. Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR628(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to publish his result allowing the marks in VIIth paper of B.Sc. Physics (Hons.).2. It has been stated that the petitioner was a student of B.Sc. Physics (Hons.) in session 2000-03. He had appeared in Part-III final examination of the said course in the year 2005. The results of the examination were published, but the petitioner's result was not published. In the cross list, it was mentioned that the result was pending. However, after publication of result, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner asking him as to why appropriate order be not passed for interpolation of the answer sheet of VII paper of B.Sc. Physics (Hons.) The petitioner, thereafter, filed his reply denying interpolation, but the respondents have not published the result even after submission of the reply by the petitioner. The petitioner has, thus, approached this Court for a direction as aforemention...
Jharkhand General Mazdoor Union/Coal Mines Worker Union Vs. Bharat Coo ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR419(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction on the respondents to abstain from removing new Laikadih Open Cast Project Weighbridge in view of the agreement dated 28th February. 2001.2. The petitioner-Jharkhand General Mazdoor Union/Coal Mines Worker Union is a registered union 182 members of the Union are engaged in loading of coal for the last 20 years. There was an agreement between the Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (for short BCCL) and the Union by which the members of the Union were allowed to continue as DC Loaders. Now the weighbridge where the members of the Union were loaders have been sought to be shifted to Dahi Bari Open Cast Project. According to the petitioner, the same is against the terms of the agreement and the respondents are liable to be restrained by an appropriate writ of this Court.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Management-BCCL, stating, inter alia, that the relief sought for by the petit...
Kamla Devi and anr. Vs. J.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR32(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the death-cum-retiral benefits, payable to them, after the death of Vijoy Kumar, who was an employee and died in harness on 24.10.2006.It has been stated the petitioner No. 1 is the widow and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of Vijoy Kumar, who died while he was working as Personnel Officer under the respondent-Electrical Supply Circle, Kusai Colony, J.S.E.B. Doranda, Ranchi. After the death of Vijoy Kumar, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits and also for compassionate appointment of petitioner No. 2, but till date, the grievances of the petitioner No. 1 have not been redressed by the respondents.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Board, J.S.E.B., Ranchi-respondent No. 4 is the competent authority and if the petitioners file fresh representation giving d...
Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2142; [2008(3)JCR410(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, CJ. and Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. Petitioner/appellant had preferred W.P.(S) No. 4162 of 2007 with the following prayers:(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/Rule/Direction or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order No. 187 dated 28.12.2006 issued under the signature of the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh communicated by letter No. 138 dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure-3) where by and where under a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner.(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/Rule/Direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order No. 46 contained in Memo No. 920 dated 13.3.2007 issued under the signature of the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh (Annexure-5) by which the petitioner has been put under suspension.(iii) For a direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of salary 18.6.2005 to 13.10.2005, which has not been paid to the petitioner for the rea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »