Jharkhand Court August 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.
Baleshwar Chaudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR333(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents assailing the impugned order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar in T.R. Case No. 186 of 2006 whereby cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 167 of the representation of People Act, 1950 against the petitioner in contravention of the provision of Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The prosecution story in brief was that the informant District Transport Officer, Deoghar in his written report presented before the Officer-in-charge of Palajori Police Station alleged that the vehicles were requisitioned from the petitioner for its use under Section 160 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 for the smooth movement of the police force and the Magistrates in the ensuing parliamentary election, 1999 but the petitioner Baleshwar Chaudhary, at serial 3 of th...
Amiya Bhushan Mahato Vs. Smt. Santi Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2726; [2008(3)JCR720(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by the District judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 3 of 2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant against the final decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 47 of 1984 has been dismissed as not maintainable.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff (respondent No. 5) filed Title Suit No. 47 of 1984 against the petitioner-defendant seeking partition of joint family properties. The said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree of partition was passed holding that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to share in the properties. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the preliminary decree dated 04.5.1993. Thereafter, the plaintiff proceeded for preparation of final decree and a Pleader Commissioner was appo...
Yamuna Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR726(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners in this writ application have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the Respondents to issue provisional Admit-cards to the petitioners for allowing them to appear in the examination for the posts of Primary Teachers scheduled to be held on 10th August, 2008.2 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had submitted their respective application forms in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur but they did not receive their Admit-cards for appearing in the aforesaid examination and when they approached the office of the District Superintendent of Education, they were informed that the Office did not have any information as to the reason, why the Admit-cards were not received. Learned Counsel refers in this context to Annexure-3, which is a letter addressed by the District Superintendent of Education on 06th of August, 2008 to the Secretary, J.P.S.C, Ranchi wherein, it h...
Anita Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR732(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners in this writ application have prayed for issuance of a writ commanding upon the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2 to immediately and forthwith issue Admit Cards to the petitioners for appearing in the examination to be held on 10th August, 2008 for the post of Primary Teacher in the State of Jharkhand.2. The petitioners' case is that they had submitted their application in response to the advertisement annexing all the requisite documents pertaining to their academic qualifications. Petitioners had also submitted their teachers' training certificates issued by the Teachers' Training College of India at Gaya, which is an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, Government of India. The respondents rejected her application on the ground that the certificate which she had produced, is of Nursery Teachers' Training and the same is not a competent certificate and qualification for the purpose of eligibility.3. Referring ...
Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nilachal Iron and Power Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR715(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application by the defendant-petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9.08.2007 passed by subordinate judge Ist, Saraikela in Money Suit No. 5 of 2006 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner purported to be under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for return of the plaint on the ground that the Court at Saraikela has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-respondent placed purchase order in the year 2003-04 before the petitioner for system design, detailed design, manufacture and supply of complete materials handling system etc. for Sponge Iron plant located at Kandra, Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand. An agreement to that effect was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent wherein clause 15.0 stipulated about the jurisdiction of Kolkata Court in case any dispute arises between the parties. A...
Pramod Kumar Rana and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR114(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners in these applications have prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) to forthwith issue provisional admit cards to the petitioners to allow them to appear at the examination scheduled to be held on 10th August, 2008 for selection for their appointment on the post of primary teachers.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 5 of 2007 published by the JPSC for appointment on the post of teachers in the primary schools, the petitioners submitted their application forms. However, they did not receive their admit cards; they checked in the Internet and to their surprise, they found that their forms were rejected on the ground 'language not applicable'. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the application forms which were made available to the petitioners, there was no column wherein the...
Union of India (Uoi) Through South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur Divi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR714(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ applications, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this order.2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 186 of 2005 and O.A. No. 210 of 2005 whereby direction was issued to the petitioners to allow the respondents to join in Group-D post as per offer of appointment.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:Some posts were advertised for employment in the Railway under handicapped quota vide notification dated 10.2.1999. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the private respondents including other handicapped persons applied for Group-D posts with disability between 40% and 70%. The respondents being physically handicapped having 40% visual and hearing disability, claimed to be the persons entitled to get employment as per Disability Act. 1995. However, the petitioner-appe...
Pashupati Nath Singh @ Dr. Pashupati Nath Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR727(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded maximum sentence for seven years for each of the offences of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the appellant while was posted as TVO (Mobile) in the District Animal Husbandry Office, Hazaribagh issued certificate of receipt of the medicine without receiving the medicine to the extent to which suppliers claimed to have supplied and thereby the appellant in connivance with others facilitated the suppliers to take payment of the medicine which they had not supplied to the extent to which they claimed but the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing that medicines were never supplied...
Tarit Kumar Dutta Roy Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(57)BLJR32; [2008(4)JCR24(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 03.05.2000 whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in Case No. C/7 89/2000 against the accused persons including the petitioner.2. The facts in short are that the complaint was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Chaibasa in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa against the three accused persons including the petitioner alleging that he being the Enforcement Officer in the capacity of Inspector appointed under Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 inspected the Mines in question where he found that the work of raising of Iron Ore, Loading, Transporting, Levelling of Iron Ore on B.G. Wagons, Drilling and Blasting in Iron Ore Mines was being done by the con...
Chandeshwar Lal Das and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR19(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 23.6.2005 passed by Sri S.K. Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Dhanbad in C.P. case No. 634 of 2005 whereby and whereunder having been satisfied that prima facie offence was made out under Sections 424/467/107/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 against the petitioners, directed summons to be issued against them.2. The prosecution story in short was that the petitioner No. 1 Chandeshwar Lal Das, Advocate on record in Title (Partition) Suit No. 74 of 2004, was assigned the power of attorney by the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to execute a sale deed and accordingly he executed on 19.4.2005 in favour of the petitioner No. 7 Rita Devi Verma.3. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 Mahendra Singh brought about a complaint case No. 634 of 2005 on 4.5.200...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »