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.
Shankar Nath @ Shankar Labh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2939; [2008(3)JCR520(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of his dismissal dated 10.2.2003 passed against him by the respondent No. 8 and has also prayed for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the police force on the recommendation of the then Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna as a special case for appointment on consideration of the exemplary courage showed by him in assisting the Special Police Task Force which was constituted for curbing criminal activities of criminals within the district of Palamau. His appointment was made by order dated 26.3.1997 Issued from the office of Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. While granting him appointment on special consideration, the fact that the petitioner's height was two inches less than the prescribed standard of height, was overlooked and Ignored and since the petitioner was having a good knowledge in computer ope...
Rajeev Ranjan Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(57)BLJR153
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Police Officer, has filed this application for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 24/08/2004 for the offence under Suctions 323, 355 and 504 IPC as well as the entire criminal prosecution against him.2. The facts, in short, are that a complaint petition was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau by O.P No. 2 Sudhir Kumar Choubey against the petitioner alleging therein that the complainant was an Advocate of Daltonganj whereas the accused/petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge of G.R.P., Garhwa Road. The accused knowing fully well that the complainant was an Advocate, arrested him on 28/04/2004 at Rehla Bazar Chowk and brought him under handcuff to G.R.P., Garhwa, where he was assaulted, abused and insulted by the accused/petitioner. On the basis of the said allegations, it was prayed by the complainant to take cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 355, 504, 352 and 506 IPC. The...
Bhukhar Mahto Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR49(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion to Grade P5 with effect from 1998 and also to grant him promotion to Grade P6 with effect from 2002 with all monetary benefits thereon.3. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is a employed as a Technician (staff No. 435786) in the Bokaro Steel Plant. On account of some mishap in which the daughter-in-law of the petitioner suffered death on 55.1994 due to burn injuries, a case was registered against him and other members of his family for certain criminal offences and the petitioner was taken into custody. However, he was released on bail in due course in the aforesaid case. During the period the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the case, he could not join his duties. Consequently, he was charge sheeted for his absence from services vide notice dated 21.6.1994. Pending department...
Sanjay Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR51(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. Through this writ application, an order as contained in Memo No. 6255 (S), dated 29.08.1998 (Annexre-9) has been sought to be quashed, under which the appointment of 382 employees of the Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, including the petitioners has been cancelled.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that some of the persons, whose appointments were also cancelled under the said impugned order (Annexure-9), had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3769 of 2001 and other analogous cases, whereby this Court after hearing the parties, quashed that order and directed the authority concerned to issue a fresh show cause notice and to pass order, in accordance with law.4. However, that order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide S.L.P. No.1604 of 1999 which got dismissed and consequently order of this ...
Baleshwar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR125(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2004, whereby the S.D.J.M., Garhwa, took cognizance of the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner.3. The facts in short are that the petitioner was holding a fair price shop being license No. 2 of 1984 and the shop was raided in which wheat and rice was found excess in his stock. According to stock register. 34 Quintals 41 Kgs. 680 grams wheat should have been there but on physical verification, the quantity of wheat was found to be 76 quintals and 50 kgs. Similarly, as per the stock register, 27 quintals 27 kgs of rice should have been there but on physical verification, the quantity of rice was found to be 49 quintals. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and, thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and on the basis of charge-sheet, c...
Jalibi Devi and ors. Vs. Sanjit Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR92(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ application at the instance of the plaintiffs-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.6.2007 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Chatra in Title Appeal No. 10 of 2006 whereby he has allowed the petition filed by the defendants-appellants purported to be under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The original plaintiff, being the husband of petitioner No. 1. filed Title Suit No. 28 of 1987 against the defendants for then eviction from the suit property and also for payment of arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit by terms of judgment and decree dated 22.5.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment the defendants-appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 16 of 2006. In the said a...
Sadanand Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR110(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure 2) issued to the petitioner for removing alleged encroachment from the Railway land to the extent of 37' x 77'. He further submitted that the land in question belonged to the petitioner as per Khatiyan (Annexure 1) and, therefore, in view of the bona fide dispute, the Railway should have filed a suit.2. Mr. R.N. Roy, appearing for the respondents-Railways, on the other hand, submitted that Eviction Case No. E.L./140/BRKA/87 was started against the father of the petitioner in which order was passed by the Estate Officer (respondent No. 3) on 17.7.1989 for eviction from the land described in the schedule of the order measuring 1500 square feet being C.S. Plot No. 629, Mouza Barkakana, Khatiyan No. 15, as per the boundary given in the order. He further submitted that the land was allotted to Kendriya Vidyalaya and when the boundary of ...
Mukesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Sanat Kumar Dawn and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR96(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In that instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.5.2007 passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Koderma in Eviction Suit No. 7 of 1995 whereby he has refused the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to file written statement.2. The brief facts, which are relevant, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed aforementioned suit against the father of the petitioner and one Md. Laik Khan and M/s. Menoka Hotel for a decree of eviction and realization of the earlier rent and compensation. The plaintiffs case is that he is owner of the suit property in which original defendant No. 1 was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The original defendant No. 1 filed written statement and contested the suit. However, original defendant No. 1 died leaving behind the widow, minor sons and daughters including the petitioner. After the death, the substituted defendants also filed a written statement...
Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors. Vs. Savitri Bhuian
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR52(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Management of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited against the cider dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 262.6 of 2007 by which the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 13.3.2007 which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the respondent- M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, appellant herein, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner/respondent herein for fresh appointment on compassionate ground.2. To explain the position, it may be relevant to state that the deceased-husband of the respondent, Savitri Bhuian, during his life time had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 246 of 2005 challenging the order of his dismissal from the service of the appellant- M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B.C.C.L. in short) but during pendency of the said writ petition, the matter was settled in the 'Lok Adalat' and the appellant- B.C.C.L. had agreed to reinstate the d...
Manoj Kumar Goswami Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR552(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Petitioner Manoj Kumar Gowsami is an accused for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code that he perpetuated torture to his wife (complainant) on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and for retaining her stridhan.2. As the petitioner Manoj Kumar Goswami had expressed his willingness to keep his wife (complainant) with full dignity and honour, he was admitted to provisional ball till 1st of May. 2008 by this Court in C.P. Case No. 427 of 2007 calling upon the petitioner and the complainant to appear on 1st of May, 2008 before a Bench of this Court. Both appeared on the date fixed and were again asked to appear in the chamber on 8.5.2008 for conciliation.3. During conciliation between the parties in the chamber, the complainant-opposite party No. 2 Sweta Goswami expressed her apprehension that she might be assaulted, humiliated and driven out from her matrimonial home by the petitioner if she be asked to go to her matrimonial home ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »