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.
Jaymanti Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR639(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for an order for quashing the order dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure-2), whereby pursuant to the directions of the Respondent No. 5 issued on 06.11.2003, a fresh selection process for appointment to the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' has been issued, although the petitioner has already been selected for the aforesaid post. The further prayer has been made by the petitioner to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents not to give effect to the impugned order (Annexure-2) and to allow the petitioner to work as 'Anganbari Sevika'.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in compliance withthe rules and guidelines, issued by the State Government for appointment of the post of 'Anganbari Sevika', a meeting of the 'Amsabha' of the Village Dandarkhurd was held on 18.02.2003. The Selection Committee considered the candidature of the petitioner alongwith other candidates and had selecte...
Timbru Oraon @ Timru Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR379(Jhr)]
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.9.1991 passed by Shri N.K. Prasad, District and Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1991/G.R. No. 648 of 1990, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the informant, Shankar Oraon (PW 1), briefly stated is that on 12.9.1990 at about 3.30 P.M., he, his mother (PW 2), 'Mami' (PW 3-wife of deceased) were going to Village Tira Dumertoli for looking their Gora paddy. The deceased-Etwa Oraon, coming on bicycle, proceeded ahead and went to the field in question where the appellant-Timbru Oraon @ Timru along with his two brothers were harvesting the paddy crop, to which Etwa Oraon, protested and thereon the appellant-Timbru Oraon @ Timru picked up 'Baluwa' from the field and attacked Etwa Oraon. On receiving Baluw...
Sinclair Steels Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR644(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents to forthwith grant licence/registration to the petitioner for processing/storage/sale/trade of iron ore.2. The case of petitioner is that it is a private company engaged in the business of mining, manufacturing, processing, trading, sale and purchase of iron ores. A Circular was issued in the Department of Mines by the State of Jharkhad in 2007 directing all persons/companies engaged in the business of minerals to obtain registration from the mining department.3. In pursuance of the direction contained in the said circular, the petitioner filed its application on 28.5.2008 before the District Mining Officer on 28.5.2008, who directed the petitioner to furnish certain documents, including a declaration on affidavit that the petitioner (in case of a company, the Managing Director thereof) is not convicted for any offence relating to smuggling of coal and minerals. It...
Sushila Devi Vs. Poonam Srivastava
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR356(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Additional Munsif 1st at Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 97 of 2002 allowing the petition dated 11.8.2003 filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent: under Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code of Civil Procedure for exclusion of the counter claim brought by the defendant-petitioner.3. The learned court below, inter alia, held that there has to be nexus between the claims/causes of action of the parties but they are different.4. Mr. Rajesh Lala, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner purchased part of the property from Smt. Shanti Rani Chakraborly on 23.7.1999 and thereafter she and her son sold part of the property to the respondent on 3.3.2000. A common drain was shown in the map, as part of the schedule of the sale deed. He further submitted that in the sale deed of the respondent also it is mentioned as 'existing drain', but the other sti...
Rishi Kumar Sahay Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR360(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ application has prayed for a direction to pay him the monthly political family pension, which is payable to him under the Scheme announced by the Government of India on the ground that the petitioner being a freedom fighter, is entitled for payment of family pension under the aforesaid Scheme.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to several Annexures, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid Scheme, wherein it was stipulated that those freedom fighters who have remained in jail for six months or more in connection with National Movement for freedom, are entitled for Monthly Political Family Pension. The petitioner claiming eligibility for payment of family pension, had applied to the concerned authorities and pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, the concerned authorities had sanctioned payment of pension to the petitioner with effect from 15th August, 1972. Thereafter, petitioner used to be paid the monthly ...
Malika Gope Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(57)BLJR7
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Both the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in ST. No. 413 of 1997 holding all the four appellants guilt for the charges under Sections 498A/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and three years respectively under Sections 306/34 and under Sections 498A/34 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently against them.2. The appellant Fatik Gope (Cr. Appeal No. 257 of 2000(r)) was released after serving out the entire period of sentence from the prison whereas the other three appellants are on ad-interim bail.3. The brief fact of the case was that the daughter of the informant Radhamani Gope (since deceased) was married to the appellant Fatik Gope of village Durku and thereafter a female child was born to them. Soon after the marriage it was alleged that the appellants used t...
Sunil Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR672(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay arrears of wages to the petitioner from April, 1998 till date equal to the salary as that of regular employees after holding that the petitioner has been continuously serving as daily wager on the post of Clerk since 25.12.1982. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to take immediate steps for filling up vacant sanctioned post by a regular process of selection waiving the age restriction and by giving due weightage to the petitioner of his past service in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. as reported in : (2006)IILLJ722SC .2. The case of the petitioner as has been made out in the writ application and also rejoinder to the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage worker on 25.12.1982 in the State Trading Division, Ra...
Giriwar Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR360; [2009(1)JCR116(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Prayer in this writ application has been made by the petitioner to issue an appropriate writ commanding upon the concerned respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion from his present post of Gram Panchayat Sewak to the post of Gram Panchayat Paryavekshak and also to grant him second time bound promotion which, according to him, is due since 1992.2. The petitioner's contention is that he was appointed under the erstwhile State of Bihar as Gram Panchayat Sewak on 08.01.1982 and he was posted as such in the Lapung Block within the district of Ranchi. He is a graduate belonging to the Backward Class and according to the rules, he is entitled to such promotion to the post of Gram Panchayat Paryavekshak. It is also contended that the first time bound promotion was given to the petitioner after completing 12 years of continuous service from the date of his initial appointment but his second time bound promotion, which is due to him according to rules afte...
Bishwajit Chatterjee @ Bishu Chatterjee Vs. Shankar Mitra
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR98(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner had originally challenged the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge, Vth, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 64 of 1999, allowing the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent to close the evidence of the plaintiff.3. It appears that the defendant-petitioner raised a frivolous contention that the plaintiff should be cross examined at the cost of the plaintiff, which was rejected by order dated 25.5.2007 against which the petitioner and other tenants filed writ petitions being WP (C) Nos. 3930, 3951, 3953, 3954, 3956 and 3962 of 2007 which were dismissed by order dated 23.7.2007. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner did not choose to cross examine the plaintiff, who was examined on commission. The Pleader Commissioner discharged the plaintiff and returned his evidence to the Court. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner filed a petition to recall the plaintiff witness for cross-examinati...
Shri Shiv Kumar Agrawal Vs. Matizan Bibi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1488; 2008(56)BLJR2927; [2009(1)JCR83(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2007 passed by 5th Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (F.T.C.) Dumka in Title Claim Suit No. 55/04 whereby he has awarded Rs. 3,19,000/- as compensation and held that the appellant-owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the said compensation.2. The claimants-respondents, who are the widow and four minor children filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- (rupees nine lacs) for the death of Md. Kadir Ansari in a motor accident.3. The facts of the case in brief is that the deceased Md. Kadir Ansari was driving a Tata Truck 407 bearing registration No. BR-40-5442. One Motilal Rai son of Mahadeo Rai informed the police that at about 1 P.M. while he was going in a motorcycle he saw one 407 Truck bearing aforesaid registration number coming from other side in a very rash and neglige...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »