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.
Ram Chandra Dubey and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR92(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Though in this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution and the order taking cognizance dated 30.5.2007 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307/34, IPC but at the time of argument. Mr. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are confining their prayer for quashing only with a regard to the offence under Section 307, IPC.3. Mr. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for one and the same offence, two first information reports were lodged, one against the petitioners at the instance of Ashok Tiwary, which was registered as Rehala P.S. Case No. 37/2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34, IPC and the other FIR lodged by Shashi Shekar Dubey. petitioner No. 2 herein, against the informant party which was registered as Rehala P.S. Case No. 38/2006 for t...
Smt. Sikha Singh @ Sikha Singh Deo, Vs. State of (Now Jharkhand) and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR120(Jhr)]
1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Mr. A. K. Lal, learned Counsel, appearing for the claimants, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the expected increase in the salary of the deceased, and therefore the amount claimed i.e. Rs. 10 Lacs should have been allowed instead of Rs. 6,13,500.00,3. On the other hand Mr. Akhtar, appearing for the State submitted that the future is uncertain and therefore the claimant can not raise claim based on future enhancement in salary. He further submitted that the evidence with regard to the quantum of salary should not have been accepted by the Tribunal only on the basis of a certificate of Incharge Principal. He also submitted that the deceased was also negligent as he was walking on foot on the right side. Therefore he submitted that the award be set aside.4. Regarding the claim of enhancement of awarded amount, Mr. Akhtar right...
Vivek Rai, Vs. State of Jharkhand and Sunita Rai
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(57)BLJR129; 2009CriLJ57
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The present application f Article 254 of the Constitution of India or quashing has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Bench of this Court to consider 'as to whether Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Bihar Act IV of 1976 stood repealed or modified in view of the subsequent amendment of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Parliament by Act 63 of 1984?'3. This question has been referred by the learned Single Judge in view of two decisions of two different Single Benches of this Court, i.e. the decision rendered in the case of Sanjay Pd. Sinha @ Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. Passed in Cr. M.P. No. 436/2006, which, according to the referring Judge, is in direct conflict with the other decisions rendered in the case of Purshottam Dubey and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in and the case of Gautam Joshi and Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in .The brief facts of the case are th...
Lakhan Oraon and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR717(Jhr)]
1. All the aforesaid four appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by his judgment dated 29.7.1998, which has been challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.7.1986 at about 8.30 a.m. Budhua Oraon (the deceased) gave his fardbeyan before the Officer-in-charge of Ratu Police Station alleging therein that in the morning he had gone to plough his land and his son Bhunu Oraon was also with him. While he was ploughing, at about 8.00 a.m. the accused/appellants Chokha Oraon, Samundar Oraon (dead), Udai Oraon, Chulua Oraon came there and asked as to why he was ploughing the land. Thereupon, Budhua Oraon told him that the lands are in his continuous possession for the last thirty years and he made the same cultivable. In the meantime. Lakhna Oraon...
Pawan Kumar Laharuka @ P.K. Lahruka and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR728(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 entire criminal proceeding including the order impugned dated 12.9.2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken by the CJM, Dhanbad for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 414 of the Indian Penal Code against all the 4 accused persons including the petitioners herein.2. The earlier WP (Cr) No. 71 of 2002 preferred by the petitioners for the quashment of their criminal proceeding in Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2002 was dismissed on the ground that the writ was premature.3. The prosecution story in short was that three trucks load of coal were intercepted by the police giving rise to the institution of FIR being Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2002 for the alleged offence for carrying steam coke without valid documents. The drivers of the said trucks could not give sat...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR622]; [2008(4)JCR625(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.7.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P (1) No. 7256/2006 by which the learned single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the management of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, holding therein that the reference regarding revision of pay-scale be allowed to continue before the Labour Court.2. Assailing the aforesaid Judgment of the learned single Judge, it was submitted by the appellant-management, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, that the respondents have already availed V.R.S and they have all retired after which they have also been paid their wages.3. However, the counsel for the respondent-workmen submitted that the Labour Court has already passed an award in favour of the respondent-workmen on 30.7.2002 holding therein that the V.R.S was an eye-wash and their removal from service ought to be treated as termination without resorting to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes A...
Shiv Shankar Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR351(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner Shiv Shankar Murmu has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the order passed in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2001 by the SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa on 28.2.2006 in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2500/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 Piyo Murmu was confirmed.2. The short fact for consideration in the instant case was that the opposite party No. 2 Piyo Murmu had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- from her husband-petitioner herein on the ground that she was legally married to him on 28.1.1997 according to Santhal customary rites and thereafter both started living together. The marriage was consumated and after one month of thei...
Jagdish Singh Raghubanshi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR530(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Two cases bearing M.W. No. 84 of 1994 and M.W. No. 86 of 1994 were filed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Superintendent, Ranchi before the Court of S.D.M., Ranchi against one Raju Singh alleging therein that the workers engaged for repairing/construction work of Quarters No. 28 in Bariatu Housing Colony for the period from 4.4.1993 to 11.6.1993 were not paid their minimum wages and both the cases were allowed by respondent No. 4 S.D.M., Ranchi and thereupon a certificate case bearing C.C. No. 2 of 1996-97 was filed before the Certificate Officer, Ranchi for recovery of the amount awarded against said Raju Singh but when the warrant of arrest was issued in the said certificate proceeding in the name of the petitioners, they preferred a writ application before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2523 of 2000(R) challenging the order of the S.D.M., Ranchi and also initiation of the certificate proceeding on the ground that the award has been made against Raju Singh but in t...
Ashraf Ali Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR627(Jhr)]
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ashraf Ali Khan who had been functioning as a driver with the Railways and was posted at Dhanbad where he was allotted a quarter to reside. The earlier allotment was substituted by allotment of another quarter No. 426/II/23 at Hill Colony, Dhanbad to which the petitioner shifted after vacating the earlier quarter No. 143/L In due course of time the petitioner also retired from service of the Railways and the quarter which was in his occupation was allotted to another driver. But the petitioner failed to vacate the quarter which was in his occupation and there is dispute also in regard to the fact whether he vacated the earlier quarter or not.2. According to the respondent-authorities of the Railways at Dhanbad, the petitioner remained in occupation of the previous quarter and also subsequent quarter which was allotted to him. Thus, he remained unauthorisedly in occupation of the two quarters and thereafter he superannuated. The au...
Sri Durga Cement Company Limited Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2936; [2009(1)JCR94(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, M/s. Sri Durga Cement Company Limited, against the order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2776/2008, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board to make provisional assessment of the loss suffered by the respondent-Board on account of the alleged theft of electricity at the instance of the appellant. The provisional assessment was also ordered to be made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for the alleged unauthorized use of electricity and the assessment was to be done within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The petitioner, appellant herein, was granted opportunity to file objection and thereafter reasonable opportunity of hearing was to be granted to the petitioner-appellant and a final order subsequently thereto was to be passed.2....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »