Jharkhand Court July 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.
Sulochana Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR557(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 6.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Dhanbad in Dhanbad C.N.T. Appeal No. 140 of 1994 as also the order dated 6.10.1994, passed by the Charge Officer, Dhanbad in Janch Badar Case No. 6 of 1994.2. The facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner are that one Shiv Kumar Pandey granted settlement of a total area of 10 acres of land in Plot No. 667 (9 acres) and Plot No. 1061 (1 acre) both under Khata No. 170 by terms of a Hukumnama in favour of the petitioner, Sulochana Devi, and, accordingly, she became her Raiyat and came in possession of the settled land. It has also been submitted that in exercise of her rights as Raiayat, she continued in occupation on payment of rent against the grant of rent receipts to the Ex-landlord and also converted the settled land and made the same cultivable int...
B.O.C. India Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR477(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Reference may be made to the order dated 26.6.2008 which reads as under:This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4830/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner-appellant to file suit for damages.In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the decision of the respondents by which the tender for supply of complete system of Centralised Liquid Medical Oxygen with medical gas pipe line was allotted to respondent No. 5. The learned Single Judge found that respondent No. 5 was a proprietorship firm carrying on business of distribution of medical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods and equipments etc. and had no experience whereas the appellant has vast experience in doing the said work. Although, learned Single Judge observed that the decision making process by which work order was given to respondent No. 5 was not proper but having regard to the fact that the work was progressed to a...
Devanand Munda and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Divis ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR750(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 24.12.2001, passed by respondent No. 1 in Hazaribagh Land Restoration Revision No. 49 of 1995 and also the order dated 9.5.1995, passed by respondent No. 2 in R.A.N. 28 of 1994 and the order dated 7.11.1994, passed by respondent No. 3 in Restoration Case No. 5 of 1994.2. The brief facts, as submitted by the petitioners, are that Khata No. 54 of Village-Kurum, Police Station-Ramgarh, District- Hazaribagh, was recorded in the survey in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners. Pursuant to the death of their ancestors, the petitioners herein by inheritance and partition got the share in the land of Plot Nos. 806, 808, 809 and 810 of Khata No. 54, measuring 0.32 Acres and they continued in possession for seven years before filing of Restoration Case No. 5 of 1984. It is the case of the petitioners that the private respondents, who bel...
Babulal Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR580(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellants have challenged the judgment of their conviction and sentence dated 30th June, 2008 as passed against them by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 55 of 1990. The appellant No. 1 was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years while the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for one year each.2. The case of the prosecution stated briefly is that on the alleged date of occurrence all the accused persons including the present appellants formed an unlawful assembly being armed variously with weapons and they attacked the informant-party and as a result of assault by them one person, namely Mahadeo Singh sustained fatal injury to which he succumbed. Another injured, namely, Ajay Singh was referred to the hospital for his medical treatment. There...
Haranganj Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR595(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated Ist June, 2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 77 of 2005 and for quashing the order dated 13th December, 2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2004 as also for quashing the order dated 30th April. 2004 passed by the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh in Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2003-04.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the land, in question, is a public-road and is used by the members of the Housing Co-operative and road was constructed from the fund of the Government. It has been wrongly held by the concerned authorities that the same is not a public land and that the provision of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act is not attracted. On that basis, they have refused to take any action.3. Learned J.C. to S.C. (L & C). appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, supported the impugned or...
Sri Ramakant Kushwaha Vs. Smt. Anamika Bharati
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR599(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the Family Court, Dhanbad, in M.P. Case No. 111 of 2004, in a proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC initiated on the basis of the application filed against him by his wife namely the opposite party No. 2 claiming a sum of rupees nine thousand for maintenance of herself and for her two minor school going children.2. By the impugned order, learned Court below has directed the petitioner husband to pay maintenance amount of rupees fifteen thousand per month, out of which two minor children are to get rupees four thousand each, and the remaining amount of rupees seven thousand to be availed by the opposite party.3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Counsel explains that the claim for maintenance was initially made for rupees nine thousand only. Thereafte...
Randhir Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR636(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the registration of Bihar Cricket Association, which was registered in this State in the year 2003- 2004, bearing registration No. 107 dated 28.8.2003, as contained in Annexure-4.2. It has been stated that the said Bihar Cricket Association has been registered under the Societies Registration Act and subsequently its name has been changed as Jharkhand State Cricket Association, as contained in Annexure-8. It has been further stated that in the name and style of Bihar Cricket Association, one association was already registered. So long the said registration in the name of Bihar Cricket Association was there, registration of the Association in the same name and style is violative of Section 12(A), 12(B) of the Bihar Amendment in Societies Registration Act, as also Sections 21 and 23 of the Bihar Amendment Societies Registration Act. The petitioner protested against such illegal registration of ...
Anand Bishal Kujur Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR488(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The instant application has been filed against the order dated 07.06.2007 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007 whereby the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi dated 16.12.2006 by which the petitioner's prayer for bail under the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act has been rejected.2. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was remanded to custody in the remand home at Gumla since he was found to be a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Board before the Sessions court but by the impugned order, the Sessions court also dismissed the petitioner's prayer. It is further submitted that an order was passed by this...
Ashok Prasad Sah Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR912]; [2008(4)JCR770(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by Memo No. 1073 dated 27.3.08 whereby he has been put under suspension in contemplation of initiation of a departmental proceeding. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of three months, no proceeding has been initiated and the impugned order has been proved to be baseless. It has been submitted that earlier there was a fact finding enquiry regarding the allegations indicated in the impugned order and in that enquiry the petitioner has not been found at fault. There is no material before the respondents to frame any charge and initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. But the respondents have been unnecessarily keeping the petitioner under suspension only in order to denigrate him and lower down his esteem among his colleagues and the society. It has been submitted that an employee cannot be put under suspension in a routine manner. There must be material to constitute such s...
Mansa Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2472; [2008(3)JCR481(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.1995, passed in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1991, by the 03rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby the appellant was convicted for the alleged offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The appellant was initially tried for the offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code but at the conclusion of the trial, he has been acquitted from the charge in respect of the offence under Section 397 of the I.P.C.3. The case against the appellant and other co-accused persons was registered on the basis of the Fard Beyan of the informant, Sheo Prasad Mandal (P.W. 4) recorded at the Madhupur Police Station in the morning of 06.06.1986.4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the night of 5/6.06.1986 while the informant including his family members, namely, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were sleeping in their ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »