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.
SelestIn Kachhap Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR738(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of O.P. No. 3.2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.9.2000, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188, IPC.3. The facts, in short, are that a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC was initiated in between the parties, i.e. the petitioner and O.P. No. 3 Nilu Ekka at the instance of O.P. No. 3, who claimed right of passage over the disputed land on the ground that he was using the said land for more than 35 years and, thereby, acquired the right of users as well as the right of easement over. It was alleged by O.P. No. 3 that this petitioner by erecting a wall and fixing an Iron Gate over the disputed land blocked the passage used by the said O.P. No. 3 Nilu Ekka. The proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC was decided in favour of the O.P. No. 3 and against the petitioner by a final order dated 9.12.1...
Kanhaiya Lal Singh Choudhary and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR740(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners as per the recommendations made vide letter No. 52 dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 10), issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent No. 6), in pursuance to the Government Letter No. 1096 dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure 8) and the Government letter No. 49 dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure 9), issued by the Secretary, Science & Technology Department, Jharkhand (respondent No. 4).2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of the appointment in pursuance to the said letters and the policy decisions taken, therein, have wrongly been given to the persons junior to the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners were duly selected in the written test and also in the interview and, thus, the petitioners have been discriminated.3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State. Making reference to an...
State of Bihar Through the Collector Vs. Krishandeo Rajak
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR719(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that in view of the fact that the applicant-respondent did not take steps under Section 19-A and 24(3) of the Santhal Parganas Rent Regulation Act, 1886 for enhancement of the rent of the land, the lands could not be treated to be 'Dhani' first class land. He further submitted that the learned Court below wrongly concluded that the applicant-respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate fixed in case of one Bhola Harijan.2. According to the applicant, he being ex-military man and a member of Scheduled Caste was settled about five bighas of land in Mauza Dariapur in plot No. 227 and he was put in possession of the same, which he converted into 'Dhani' first class land by growing crops with his labour and investment with the irrigation facility available. The Government acquired 1.75 acres of land out of the said five bighas of land and paid compensation of Rs. 8686.58p treating the land as Bart second class land. One Bhol...
Santosh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR723(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Surveyor in the DVC, Bermo Mines on 20.3.1956 and was promoted to the post of Survey Officer with effect from 24.2.1975 and was retired on superannuation from service of DVC (Mines) on 28.2.1985. While the petitioner was still in service, the respondent-employer circulated a notification among his employees calling upon the employees Of the Corporation who have completed 20 years of service to exercise option in writing either to continue to subscribe to contributory provident fund or to the employees provident fund or to opt for pension-cum-gratuity scheme. Thereupon, the petitioner opted for pension-cum-gratuity scheme but the authority did not communicate about the outcome of that option though the petitioner had expressed his readiness to refund the Corporation's contribution to provident fund. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired on superannuation but was not given benefit under the aforesaid scheme, namely,...
Chunnilal Patel Vs. Satyadeo Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR724(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Sub Judge-I. Pakur in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 21 of 2003 allowing the prayer of the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'B.B.C. Act') and directing the defendants-petitioner to deposit arrears and current rent.2. Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the finding recorded in the said order that their exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties will seriously prejudice the petitioner as his case is that the B.B.C. Act is not applicable in this case, as only a parti land was given on rent to his father over which building was constructed by his father. He further submitted that petitioner had instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 41 of 2001 for declaring the sale deed executed in favo...
Satish Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR731(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 who, in spite of service of notice, has not appeared.2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged that part of the order dated 24.8.2000 whereby, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi while granting bail to the accused/opposite party No. 2 in Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 247/2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 1775/2000, has entered into merit of the allegations made in the FIR and has also made observation on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has observed that the outstanding dues is Rs. 16,974.68/- Paise as shown on the last bill. He also held that the loss to the Electricity Board amounting to Rs. 20,000/- is exorbitant.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has gone beyond the jurisdiction in giving such finding/observations while...
Surendra Sharma Alias Surendra Prasad Sharma Vs. Stephen Marandi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(57)BLJR117; [2008(4)JCR260(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. The present election petition has been preferred by the petitioner for declaring election of the sole respondent, the returned candidate from 10-Dumka Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled tribe category as null and void.The petitioner's case is as under:i. That he as a voter from the Dumka assembly constituency, had filed his nomination paper to contest election of assembly seat held in the year 2005. However, his nomination paper was rejected illegally by the Returning Officer-cum-S.D.M., Dumka on 7.2.2005.ii. That illegal rejection of the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was just to help the returned candidate and was against the provisions of law.iii. That the petitioner being 'Lohar' by caste had been declared scheduled tribe in Part III list of scheduled tribes at Sl. No. 22 for the State of Bihar by the President of India under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.iv. That recognition of 'Lohar'/'Lohra' otherwise spelt as 'Lohar' by different ...
Puran Giri @ Puran Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR430
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30th October, 2006 and 31st October, 2006 respectively, passed in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2005, arising out of Jama Police Station Case No. 110 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka (F.T.C.), while acquitting one of the accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Mandal of the charges, has convicted the appellant and one another for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and further imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.2. The prosecution case, which is based on the Fard-beyan (Ext. 1/1), given by one Jona Kisku (PW 5) before the then Sub Inspector of Police, Jama Police Station, on 7.12.2004 at about 11.45 a.m., in brief, is set out as und...
Pandey Singh Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR624(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO. 5524/2002 by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding therein that the petitioner(appellant herein) had himself accepted the post of Pump Khalasi in place of Loader after which he was regularized as a General Mazdoor Category-1 along with 33 others and hence, the petitioner/appellant is not entitled to the relief claimed by him.2. In order to high light the controversy involved in this appeal it may be relevant to state that the appellant had been appointed initially on 04.01.1967 as a Loader and in the year 1988 he suffered compression fracture of both lumber vertebra spine due to which he was declared medically unfit to discharge the duty of a Loader. The respondent-management of the C.C.L. on compassionate ground allowed him to be absorbed on the post of Pump Khalasi as he was unable to discharge the duty of a Loader.3. Admitted...
Arjun Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR353(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is to quashed the order dated 20th September, 2000 whereby the cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Panel Code was taken by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 851/2000.3. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken to be correct in its entirety, no offence is at all made out against the petitioner and therefore, the order taking cognizance against him for the aforesaid offences is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the complaint was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner and others only due to the fault committed on the part of the then Ex-President and Ex-Secretary, Nilanchal Housing Cooperative Society.4. The opposite party No. 2 Ramakant Mishra filed the aforesaid complaint petition against four acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »