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.
Most. Jabina Khatoon and ors. Vs. Shyam Prasad Yadav and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR401(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal, by the claimants, is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 63/2005. by which the Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,95,000/- for the death of Imteyaz Hussain in a motor vehicle accident.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.3. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of the respondents for payment of compensation. The only issue is as to what should be just and reasonable compensation.4. The claimants case is that the deceased Imteyaz Hussain was working in Bharat Leather Jacket Factory, New Delhi and he was getting salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. In support of the earning of the deceased, the claimants examined witnesses but, the Tribunal, holding that no documentary evidence has been produced in support of the earning of the deceased, took the wages of the deceased at Rs. 80/- per day. On the basis of this...
Nand Kishore Prasad Sahu Vs. Jyoti Prasad Khatri and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR106(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The claimant-appellant has challenged part of the judgment and award dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohar-daga in Compensation Case No. 47 of 1994 whereby interest has been awarded from 3.1.2006.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not mentioned the date when the claim case was dismissed for default but only mentioned the date i.e. 3.1.2006 when the claim case was restored and taking the date of restoration, the interest was awarded from that date. According to the learned Counsel the claim case was dismissed for default on 13.5.2005 and same was restored on 3.1.2006. It is contended that for the period i.e. from 13.5.2005 to 3.1.2006, the claimant-appellant may not be entitled for interest, but for the rest of the period i.e. from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of award, the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.3. The appeal was heard on 20.2.2008 and the a...
Aparup Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR241]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties immediately and also to pay the arrears of salary on and from April, 1997 till date and also to pay the current salary to the petitioner.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was employed under the respondents and was assigned the duties at the Head Quarters of B.C.C.L. where lie was working as an Accounts Assistant in the Finance Department.On the ground of certain allegations of misconduct in performance of duty, the petitioner was placed under suspension in November, 1975 and after serving him with the formal charge sheet, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Subsequently, pursuant to an order of Kolkata High Court, where the petitioner had preferred the writ application, he was allowed to resume his duty and thereafter he joined on 7.5.1993. However, e...
State of Bihar Through the Deputy Commissioner and anr. Vs. Rojani Bib ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR103(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of reversal.2. On 13.7.1988 the following question of law was formulated:The sole question of law which arises for determination in this appeal as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as mentioned by the Courts below, it can be said that a valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the State Government or not.3. The plaintiffs/respondents filed this suit for declaration of title in respect of Schedules A and B land and also for declaration that the survey entry with respect to the suit lands in the name of defendants/appellants is wrong and illegal. By the judgment dated 4.2.1982, the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable as notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has not been legally proved. The other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. No cross appeal was filed by the defendants/appellants against the sa...
Smt. Shanti Nayak and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR70(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Ananda Sen. learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants and Mrs. Nisha Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16th January, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seraikella in Compensation Case No. 47 of 2005 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,000/- by way of compensation for the death of the deceased, Meghu Nayak, in a motor vehicle accident.3. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. It appears that on 31.7.2005, the deceased Meghu Nayak along with his son was going on the left plank portion of the road near Hat Gamharia Bazar at 4.00 p.m. In the meantime, the offending truck arrived there at a very high speed and dashed the deceased on his back as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.4. The claimants' case is that the deceased was working as a Munshi under a Contractor and he ...
Usha Mishra, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR346
R.R. Prasad, J.Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the State.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2002, dated 24.04.2002, issued by the District Administration, Hazaribagh, the petitioners submitted their applications for appointment on Class-IV post and After taking written examination and also other tests, the petitioners came out successful and hence, their names were empanelled in the panel, prepared by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 the Principal, Indira Gandhi Residential Girls School, Hazaribagh vide her Letter No. 579 dated 10.09.2005 made a request before the respondent No. 2 the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, for sending the names of the eligible candidates for their appointments on Class-IV post, pursuant to that respondent, No. 2 vide his Letter No. 540 dated 31.10.2005, sent a list of twenty eight candid...
Jagdish Prasad Maheshwari Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR433(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.1.2004 by which the learned court below has refused to discharge the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.3. According to Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned court below has committed an error on record by not considering the facts on record that the petitioner has filed a case against the informant of this case on the same day dated 18.7.2002 registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 374/2002 in which the police has submitted charge sheet against the informant. It was further pointed out that prior to this FIR the petitioner has already moved the Labour Commissioner, Ranchi as well as Industrial Tribunal alleging ill-treatment by the opposite party No. 2 withholding his salary etc., after which the present false case has been lodged against him. According to Sri Roy, the learned trial court has ignored all these facts and relied upon the statement of o...
Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR118(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the District order dated 22/09/2007, contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, cancelling the candidature of the petitioner to the post of police constable and consequently, dismissing him from service on the ground of being the beneficiary of manipulation in the Master Chart.3. The facts, in short leading to present case, are that an advertisement No. 1/2004 dated 13/01/2004 was published calling for application for appointment of the police constables in the different Districts of the State of Jharkhand including the Districts of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Chatra. Pursuant thereto the petitioner applied for the said post by filling up the forms. It is stated that the selection process of the aforesaid four districts namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih was cancelled by memo No. 1764/P on 10/12/...
Munna Singh @ Sharangdhar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR434(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.01.2008 passed in S.T. No. 301/02 by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. - IV, Dhanbad closing the case of the defence and fixing the Sessions Trial for arguments.3. The facts in short are that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons is facing trial in S.T. No. 301/02 for the charges under Sections 302, 307, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on 23.11.2005, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was closed and then the statement of the accused persons were recorded on 15.12.2005. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 20th December, 2005 for defence witnesses.4. As it appears that at the stage of producing defence witnesses, the petitioner filed a petition alongwith a list of 15 witnesses before the Trial Court for summoning them. The list included the eight Officers Incharge of the Police Station.5. The learned Trial Court though rejected the said prayer of the defence by o...
Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh Choudhary @ Mukesh Singh Vs. State o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR9(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is in custody since 8th July, 2007 for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/149/452/380/307/302, IPC as also under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of few material witnesses by the order dated 18.3.2008 passed in B.A. No. 7581 of 2007.Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Roy submitted that though the petitioner is in custody since long but the charge could not be framed, so the prosecution did not produce any witness. In view of such exigency and that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments including liver cirrhosis, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail.4. Pursuant to the order dated 2.5.2008, the Medical Officer, Deoghar after examination of the petitioner by his report on 19.7.2008 found the following:(i) Liver enlarged and slightly tende...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »