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.
Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR332
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18th April, 2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Complaint Case No. 237 of 1998/Tr. No. 416 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. In Cr.M.P. No. 925 of 2007, preferred by the appellant herein, seeking leave to appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26th June, 2008 granted leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.3. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:As per the prosecution case, the complainant-appellant Parvati Devi was married with respondent No. 2, Punu Bhuiyan, in the year, 1985. The couple lived amicably for eleven years. Thereafter, the accused (respondent No. 2 herein) demanded a motorcycle a colour T.V. and...
Fagua Oran and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR249(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 17.2.1997 and 21.9.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gumla who are arraigned as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein whereby and whereunder both the statutory authorities held that the possession of the lands and the instrument of transfer are in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.2. The facts in brief are set out as under:According to the petitioners the lands in question have various plots and Khata No. 194, Khata No. 131 measured 6.34 acres and 0.76 acres of village Nazma Police Station, Sisai, District-Gumla and the same was recorded In the name of Chotka Klmani Oraon son of Deva Oran, Kharia Oraon and others who were In possession of the aforesaid land. It has further been submitted that on 16.11.1994 the petitioners Gafua Oran, Karma Oran, ...
Tapeshwar Prasad Verma and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR324(Jhr)]
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present Writ Petitions have been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to pay them the arrears of salary which were not paid during the intervening period when they remained out of service between the year 1984 to 2000. As the issue involved in all the above writ petitions are same and similar they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts, in brief, as stated by, the petitioners are set out as under:Pursuant to an advertisement, published on 7.4.1981 in the daily newspaper namely 'Aryavarta', inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers, the petitioners being eligible applied for the same and were interviewed between August to September, 1981 and they were included in the list of successful candidates and started working on their respective post of Assistant Teachers.W.P. (S) No. 4085 of 20023...
J.K. Janch Ghar Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR361(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2007 passed in WPC No. 779 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order reads as Under:HeardMr. Anil Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure-9) has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that in the notice dated 28.11.2006, petitioner was asked to explain certain matter, which it explained but in the impugned order apart from the said matters, other matters have also been taken into consideration about which petitioner was not given opportunity to explain and therefore the principles of natural justice has been violated by the D.V.C. which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constituti...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Chief of Revenue Ccl Vs. Makul Mahto
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR180(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. These appeals have been preferred by the Union of India through Chief of Revenue, C.C.L., challenging the judgment dated 28.6.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in M.A. Nos. 284 to 297 of 1994(R) holding that in respect of acquisition of land under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the awardees shall be entitled to get solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% to 15%.3. The appellants have challenged that part of the judgment whereby the interest and the solatium have been awarded besides the compensation and interest payable under the aforesaid Act.4. A Division Bench of this Court in similar appeals filed by the Union of India challenging the award of solatium and interest, after discussing the law in detail in the Case of Union of India v. Hari Mahto and Ors. 2002 (2) JCR 130, affirmed the judgment passed by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India holding that ...
Balram Paswan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR66(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of 4th grade employee in pursuance to the advertisement bearing advertisement No. V 02/2002 dated 24.4.2002 issued by the Assistant Director (Employment), Additional Regional Employment Exchange, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners immediately and forthwith and to give their posting against the vacant posts and also to grant and pay the consequential benefits to them as extended to the similarly situated persons whose names were also recommended for their appointment to the post of 4th grade employee along with the petitioners.2. The case of the petitioners is that in response to the advertisement (Annexure 1) issued by the respondent No. 4 for preparing panel to make appointment on the class-IV posts, the petitioners had submitted the...
Gauri Shankar Prasad Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar47; 2009(57)BLJR352; [2008(4)JCR420(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has made the following prayers:(a) For an order for quashing the Possession Notice dated 22.11.2007, issued by the Respondent No. 2, under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter In short 'SERFESI' Act) communicating a declaration thereby to the petitioner and the public in general that the Respondent has taken possession of the petitioner's property, mentioned in the Notice, in exercise of the provisions under Section 13(4) of the 'SERFESI' Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules, thereunder.(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ with a declaration that Possession Notice dated 22.11.2007 in relation to the immovable properties mentioned in the impugned Notice, is bad and illegal on the ground that the said properties were never mortgaged in favour of the Respondent-Bank and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as a security for enfor...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR285; [2008(4)JCR683(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure-6) issued vide memo No. 4314 by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4), whereby and whereunder the petitioner's appointment on the post of constable after being selected, has been cancelled and the petitioner has been dismissed from service. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of constable in which he was working, on the ground that he comes within the zone of consideration since he had qualified in the entire test and was declared successful by the Selection Board and he joined his service after receipt of the appointment letter issue to him.2. The case of the petitioner in short, is that in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper inviting applications from candidates for their appointment to...
Sheo Prakash Sinha and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR336; [2008(4)JCR316(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Since common question of law arises on the basis of identical facts in all the three writ applications, they are heard and disposed of together by this common order.2. Challenge in these writ petitions is against the initiation of the land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 1 of 2006-07 (Annexure-3) in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Petitioners claim themselves to be owners of the various units of land situated within Pundag and other areas and this fact is confirmed by the revenue records of the State Government, wherein the names and identity of the petitioners in respect of their respective area of land, stands mutated and they are in occupation and possession of their respective lands.4. A public interest litigation vide W.P. (PIL) No. 149 of 2003 was filed before thi...
Suryadeo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR667(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier this matter was heard by a Bench of this Court and in course of passing order, it was noticed that another writ application filed by this Court, bearing W.P.(S) No. 1289 of 2007 is pending for hearing whereby order awarding punishment of censure has been challenged. Therefore, the order was passed that it is desirable that both the applications be heard and disposed of together as the matter is related to each other and hence, these matters have been placed but both the matter are quite distinct as in the instant writ application, prayer has been made to direct the authorities to pass an order relating to promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer as Departmental Promotion Committee has already made recommendation for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer and hence, any order passed in the other writ application will have no bearing in the present case presently as the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »