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.
Villagers of Barki Punu Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR768(Jhr)]
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 27.6.2008 which reads as under-In this Public Interest Litigation, the villagers of village-Barki Punu represented through the petitioner sought for appropriate direction for energizing their electrical connections, which have not been done till date.According to the villagers, pursuant to the notices issued by the Electricity Board and Newspapers for rural electrification, the villagers of Barki Punu in the district of Bokaro applied for their electrical connections. About 324 intending consumers submitted their applications with the respondent-Board with the requisite deposits. Accordingly the process of electrification started as far back as in the year 2002 with the erection of electrical poles and even with installation of number of transformers in the said village, but power supply could not be finalized, despite repeated demands made by the villagers for the last more than five years.J.S.E.B (Jharkhand State Electricity Board) has file...
Vishanji Arjun Vs. Arjun Ladha Through Its Managing Partner and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR553(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, Acting C.J.1. This application is directed against the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Munsif, Chaibasa in Title Suit No. 5/05 whereby he has rejected the prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner for examination of the plaintiff on commission on the ground that the witness is 70 years old and is unable to come to Chaibasa from Kolkata.2. The court below rejected the application holding that relevant papers have not been filed showing prima facie that the witness is unable to attend the court for his examination. There is train route from Kolkata to Chaibasa and therefore, the court below held that there is no reason as to why the aforesaid witness should not be examined before the court.Perhaps the court below has not appreciated the provision of Order XVIII Rule IV of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:4. Recording of evidence-- (i) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the oppo...
Rana Anil Kumar Verma, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Tarun Kumar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2732; 2008CriLJ4558; [2008(3)JCR596(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this revision application, petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 9.6.2008 passed by Shri P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1304 of 2006, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for their exemption from personal attendance in the case, filed under Section 205 of the Cr. PC was rejected.2. Facts of the case in brief is that the complainant / opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners on certain allegations and on the basis of which, cognizance for several offences including the offences under Sections 418, 465, 504 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them and summons in the first instance were issued, directing them to appear and face trialThe complainant/opposite party No. 2 being dissatisfied with the order of cognizance taken for the limited offences, filed a revision application before the Sessions Court against the order of cognizance, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn.3. T...
Biplava Prasad Singh Vs. Hindustan Copper Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR585(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties at length.2. Both the connected cases are being disposed of by this common order.W.P.S. No. 5918 of 20033. This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay- the arrears of salary with effect from September, 2002; arrears on account of dearness allowance (DA) along with interest from January, 1998; the salary at par with the State Government teachers etc.Contempt (Civil) Case No. 250 of 20044. This contempt case has been filed alleging violation of the following interim order passed in the said writ petition on 5.12.2003.Mr. S.L. Agarwal learned Counsel appearing for the respondent prays for time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. Put up this case after six weeks.In the meantime, if the respondents are taking work from the petitioner, he should be paid his salary.5. Common arguments were advanced in the writ petition and the contempt petition as follows.6. Mr. Jha, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf ...
Salwa Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR458(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. The husband of the petitioner, namely, late Gendura Munda was employed in the Home Guard having Home Guard No. 15878. He was sent on Assembly Election Duty in the year 2005 to Deoghar. It is said that on 23.2.2005. the dead body of the husband of the petitioner was found between Nathganj and Dilua Railway Station in the District of Gaya. According to the petitioner no enquiry was made by the authority concerned as to under what cir-cumstance her husband died and how the dead body was found in the District of Gaya. The petitioner being a widow filed an application before the Director General of Police, Home Guards, for adequate compensation and for her appointment on compassionate ground as well as for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits. According to the petitioner, neither appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground...
Rajendra Singh Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR136(Jhr)]
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 2.8.2002, whereby, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had submitted the application for appointment beyond the fixed time of six months.2. The facts, as submitted, are set out as under: The father of the petitioner died in harness on 18.10. 1997, who was working as a Mining Sirdar. The petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment under paragraph 9.3.3. of N.C.W.A.-V along with affidavit in support of the same on 23.11.1998. The respondents issued a letter on 4.12.1999 to the petitioner asking him to appear before the Board and after lapse of four years i.e. on 2.8.2002 die application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the sole ground dial the same was submitted beyond die fixed time of six months.3. It appears that the respondents have issued circulars from time to time. As per circular...
Chandra Prakash Singh Vs. the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR300(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. Ajit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on 13.5.2008, meter reading was taken. An inspection was made on 26.5.2008. Board alleged theft and unauthorised use of electricity. A first information report was lodged and line was disconnected on the same day alleging loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 41,25,128.00. But even after the expiry of a long time, no order of provisional assessment has been served on the petitioner in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). He relied on AIR 2006 Cal 65 Kawsar Ali etc.2. Mr. J. Dubey, appearing for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') submitted that though the petitioner applied and accordingly load of 135 KVA was sanctioned under Memo No. 977 dated 19.6.2007 but the petitioner failed to comply with the formalities and, therefore, the said sanction remained on paper. He further submitted that though the sanctioned load of the petitioner was 79 KV...
Begha Mondal @ Manoj Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2467; [2008(3)JCR468(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2006 and order of sentence dated 14.08.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2006/33 of 2005, by the 01st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.2. The case was registered on the basis of the First Information Report of the prosecutrix and the police after investigation, submitted charge sheet recommending trial of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Thereafter charge against the accused was framed.The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the afternoon of 17.12.2004 at about 3:00 P.M., while the prosecutrix was grazing her cattle, in the fields near her house, at that time, the appellant who was also grazing his cattle nearby, came to her and after taking her to a lonely place and after laying her down, he stripped her undergarments and then ra...
Sochan Sao Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Tilak Raj Mewar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR604(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner order dated 30.1.2006 passed by the learned JM, First Class, Hazaribagh, whereby prayer for release of the dumper bearing registration No. BR 13B 9171 seized in Mandu PS Case No. 111 of 2004, was rejected.3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the case was registered under Section 379/411 IPC against the driver of the dumper and against the owner thereof on the allegation that the dumper was found carrying illegally mined coal. On seizure of the vehicle the petitioner filed his appearance before the court below claiming ownership of the vehicle and praying for its release in his favour, but the court below rejected the prayer on the ground that the ownership document of the vehicle does not stand in the name of the petitioner. Rather the vehicle was in the name of the opposite party No. 2, Tilak Raj Mewar.4. Leaned counsel submits that the court below erred in refusing ...
Jai Bahadur Lall Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR634(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.I.A. No. 1848 of 2008:1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has sought addition of the prayer, seeking quashing of the order, contained in Memo No. 113 dated 31st May, 2008, passed by the District Leprosy Officer, Bokaro, whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Medical Assistant to join the allocated cadre of the State of Bihar.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order dated 26th April, 2008, whereby the order was issued to the concerned superior of the petitioner to relieve him. During the pendency of the writ petition, order dated 31st May, 2008 has been passed, relieving the petitioner from his present place of posting to join the State of Bihar.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment prayed for is based on the same factual background, as stated in the writ petition, and that it is the subsequent event, which is relevant for the purpose of the writ petition. It has be...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »