Jharkhand Court September 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.
Manoj Kumar Jha and Subha Jha Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi Thakur
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR687(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by the District Judge, Deoghar in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 200b allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and restraining the petitioners from making any construction over the suit property, while allowing the injunction petition of the respondent.2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the said appeal filed by the respondent was not maintainable. He relied on Nagina Singh v. Most. Sheojoti Kuer and Ors. : AIR1993Pat12 , M. Radheshyamal v. Shailesh AIR 2005 Madras 93 and Manohar v. Jaipalsing : AIR2008SC429 . He further submitted that on merits also, the prayer for injunction of the respondent could not be allowed.3. On the other hand, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appealing for the respondent, supported the impugned order and submitted that actually the said app...
Sita Ram Sanchi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR633; [2009(1)JCR189(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-Copyist on temporary basis on 15.7.1970 in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Thereafter the petitioner went on working without any break. Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Revenue and Land Reforms Department issued a letter, vide memo No. 245/R(a) dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure 3) stipulating therein that the service period of the Typist and Copyist shall be counted from the date of their appointment and the time bound promotion shall be given to them accordingly. Pursuant to that letter, petitioner was given first time bound promotion with effect from 13.1.1986 and the second time bound promotion with effect from 16.7.1995. Subsequently, under memo No. 1247 dated 2.12.1996 (Annexure 5) the date of granting of first time bound promotion was reviewed and it was made effective with effect from 1.4.1981 Instead of 13.1.1986. In due course, when the service record of the petitioner was sent for veri...
Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR446(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 7 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide letter No. 52 dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 7) in the light of the Government letter No. 1096 dated 27.7.2002 (Annexure 5) and also Government letter No. 49 dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure 6) issued by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 4.2. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement (Annexure 3) issued by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was published in the daily newspaper on 28.10.2005 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment on class IV post in different offices in the district of Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, petitioners and others including those persons, who had earlier been impanelled applied for. The petitione...
Tanmay Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR676(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No. 7 to issue, appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide letter No. 52 of dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 7) in the light of the Government letter No. 1096 dated 27.7.2002 (Annexure 5) and also Government letter No. 49 dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure 6) issued by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 4.2. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement (Annexure 3) issued by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was published In the daily newspaper on 28.10.2005 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment on class IV post in different offices in the district of Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, petitioners and others including those persons, who had earlier been impanelled applied for. The pet...
Md. Abul Kalam and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR678(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.7 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad vide letter No. 52 dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 7) in the light of the Government letter No. 1096 dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure 5) and also Government letter No. 49 dated 28.2.2006(Annexure 6) issued by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 4.2. The case of the petitioners is that an advertisement (Annexure 3) issued by Deputy Commissioner, Dhandbad was published in the daily newspaper on 28.10.2005 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment on Class IV post in different offices in the district of Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, petitioner and others including those persons, who had earlier been impanelled applied for. The petitio...
Hanuman Saw Mill Vs. Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR427(Jhr)]
Gyan Sudha Mishra, C.J.1. This application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator with regard to a dispute which relates to the year 1996..2. The facts in sofar as it is relevant for the purpose of this application is to the effect that the applicant had received work orders from the respondent for supply of 2nd class Hard wood scantlings for which purchase orders were also issued by the respondent vide purchase order No. 79056 dated 25.4.1996 and purchase order No. 79152 dated 4.5.1996. It is an admitted position that the petitioner supplied the materials but inspite of the supply he never raised a demand before the respondent for payment by submitting any bill although he might have been claiming the payment orally. He however, submitted the bill finally after 10 years of the supply in the year 2006 and thereafter the amount towards supply was paid to the petitioner.3. The petitioner has already received the ent...
Pradip Rubber Industries Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR440
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 24.04.2000, passed by respondent No. 2, vide which the liability of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 39.81 lakhs (excluding Rs. 18,97,280/- already paid) under One Time Settlement (hereinafter to be referred as 'OTS') Scheme. A further prayer for issuance of mandamus has been made seeking a direction against the respondents to dispose of the OTS application in accordance with the circular dated 21.07.1993 and as per the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is summarized as under:In the year, 1972 the petitioner had made an application for grant of loan before the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Corporation') for starting Small Scale Rubber Industry for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs), which was duly sanctioned. However, the total loan amount disbursed to the petition...
Vijay Prasad Sao Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR458
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present bail application has been preferred to grant regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Narcotic Case No. 6 of 2008, arising out of Patna Police Station Case No. 48 of 2008 dated 06.04.2008, registered for the offence under Sections 17 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'N.D.P.S. Act'), now pending in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj.2. Counsel for the petitioner insisted for consideration of certain judgments and in particular the provisions under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the aforesaid Narcotic Case is not sustainable in view of settled law due to non-compliance of statutory requirement under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He has further contended that in any case the petitioner is entitled to regular bail during the pendency of trial.3. As per the complaint case and the First Information Report it appears t...
Geta Gorai @ Geeta Gorai Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR270(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The sole appellant Geta Gorai @ Geeta Gorai has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction for the offence in Part-II of Section 304, IPC by which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on 12.6.2000 in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1992 arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case No. 52 of 1991 corresponding to GR No. 671 of 1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella.2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the written report of the informant PW 4 Lilmani Gorai before the police was that on 19.10.1991 when her elder son Shibottar Gorai (since deceased) returned back his home in the noon with his own cattle as well as the cattle of his younger brother Shankar Gorai, his son Geta Gorai (appellant) and his maternal uncle Mohit Gorai inquired as to why he had taken away the cattle of Shankar Gorai also for grazing and further questioned as to why he was looking after his cultivation when Shankar Gorai was living separately. Th...
Smt. Dukhini Giri Pradhan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR461(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition for transfer of G.R. No. 644 of 2003 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Seraikella to the corresponding Court at Jamshedpur on the following grounds :2. The petitioner had lodged an FIR being Kharswan P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003 alleging inter alia that she was married to the opposite party No. 2 Raghunandan Pradhan on 29.4.1985 but after the marriage her in-laws started behaving inhumanly and attributed cruelty after she arrived at her matrimonial home. Her husband did not lag behind in so doing in various manner. The police registered the case and submitted charge-sheet after investigation for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the opposite party No. 2 Raghunandan Pradhan, opposite party No, 3 Jhantu Pradhan and opposite party No. 4 Niwketan Pradhan. Having been satisfied with the prima facie materials against them, the learned Court below took cognizance of the of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »