Jharkhand Court January 2009 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.
Nand Kishore Bhagat Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR914; [2009(121)FLR91]; (2009)IIILLJ685Jhar
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.8.99 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Appropriate Authority under the Minimum Wages Act (Respondent No. 3) in M.W. Case No. 1/99, whereby an ex-parte order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,91,915/- to Respondent No. 6 as due towards wages of the labourers while working as unskilled labourers in Godda Pirpaithi Road widening without any service of notice on the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of hearing.2. The further prayer is for quashing the order dated 11.6.2001 passed by the Addl. Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, Godda under the said Act in M.W. Appeal No. MW-1/99-2000 whereby disposing of the appeal in a cryptic manner in absence of the petitioner and that too without fixing date of hearing of the appeal to the knowledge of the petitioner and without gi...
Prayag Modi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR611(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this Cr.M.P. the petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in T.R. No. 945/05 corresponding to G.R. No. 705/04 arising out of Koderma (T) P.S. Case No. 481/04. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/341/426/504/34, IPC against the petitioners. The said cognizance has been taken on the complaint lodged by the Informant alleging therein, inter alia, that the petitioners were raising a wall on the adjacent land of the informant by breaking the old wall. When the same was objected by the informant, the petitioners pushed him to fall on the ground and assaulted him by fists and slaps and also snatched Rs. 1,000/- from his pocket.2. The petitioners have challenged the said order taking cognizance and have submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against them is wholly frivolous, malicious and is an abuse of the process of the Court and th...
Mrs. Menon Ekka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR930
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the general notice issued by respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as published in the local vernacular 'Hindustan' dated 20.12.2008, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner along with others have been noticed to remove their residential building by 30.12.2008 otherwise the same would be removed by force.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification in issue as published in the daily newspaper 'Hindustan' dated 20.12.2008 is violative of the statutory law, as provided under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and in particular Section 9-A(3). He has further referred to and relied upon Rules 3 to 6 of the Aircraft (Demolition of obstructions caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994, to support his contention. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, before demolition a notice has to be issued and/or it has to be pas...
Aparajita Jha Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Shri Mahabir Uraon
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3088
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The order dated 18.03.2005, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge, Koderma is under challenge in this revision application whereby the learned Additional, Special Judge rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner.2. The relevant facts in short giving rise to this application are that the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the informant lodged a written report on 22.06.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma alleging therein that while he was posted and working as District Superintendent of Education at Koderma, the petitioner Aparajita Jha was posted there as District Education Officer. The informant alleged that the petitioner was only the inspecting/supervising authority whereas the rest of the official work was to be performed by him on the instructions and directions of the Deputy Commissioner. Smt. Jha was also member of the District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma under the Chairmanship of the Dep...
Bimal Wire Nail Industries Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar61; 2009(57)BLJR912
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, respondent No. 2, in Certificate Appeal No. 1 of 2007 as contained in Annexure 4 whereby and whereunder the order dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Certificate Officer, Koderma, respondent No. 3 in Certificate Case No. 56 of 1990-91 dismissing the certificate case itself was set aside. Further prayer is to quash the notice issued under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why not a sum of Rs. 1,31,707.60, which is due to be paid to the State Bank of India, be realized.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Jhumri Tilaiya Branch submitted a requisition to the Certificate Officer, Koderma for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,31,707.60 under the Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Upon which Certificate Case No. 56 of 1990-9...
Sauna Munda No. 1 @ Sawana Munda No. 1 Vs. Central Coal Field Limited ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR909
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. As per the case of the petitioner he was initially appointed on 1.4.1973 in the establishment of Central Coal Field Limited. At the time of his appointment, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 9.1.1951. Subsequently, in the year 1986-87 service excerpt containing particulars of the petitioner including the date of appointment and the date of birth, was served so that objection be taken with respect to particulars if recorded incorrectly. In the service excerpt, date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 9.1.1951 which had correctly been recorded and hence, no objection was raised by the petitioner. As per the entry of the date of birth, petitioner was supposed to retire on his superannuation in the year 2011 but suddenly a notice dated 7.3.2005 was communicated to the petitioner whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that due date of superannuation is 31.1.2006 as the date of birth as recorded is 9.1.1946. On receiving the same, the petitioner m...
State Through the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishme ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR316(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18th July, 2000 passed in R.C. Case No. 13 of 1988(D) by Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad, whereby learned Magistrate has closed the prosecution evidence, fixing date for recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons.2. In the petition, it has been stated that the closure of the evidence is contrary to law and the prosecution will be deprived of the opportunity of bringing the culprit to books by the said impugned order. It has been stated that the court below has passed the said order completely ignoring the legal provisions and the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and as such, the said order is bad and unsustainable.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, opposed the petition. It has been stated that the case, in question, arose out of an F.I.R. lodged in the year 1988. The charge sheet in that case was s...
Sah Ajam Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR314(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20th August, 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2003.2. A complaint was lodged alleging that the accused persons had executed and registered a sale deed, bearing No. 354 of 1998, in favour of the complainant, purportedly transferring land of Plot No. 998, Khata No. 113, measuring on area 0.03 acre and Plot No. 999. Khata No. 140, measuring on area 0.02 acre of village Chandwa, P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar for consideration money of Rs. 30,000/- but when the complainant applied for mutation before the revenue authority, it was refused on the ground that the vendor's name was not mutated and his name did not find recorded in the Revenue Register-II. It has been alleged that the accused suppressed the said fact and induced the com...
Sushil Kumar Khowala @ Sushil Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1114
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this Cr.M.P. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 5.3.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 364/03 as also the entire criminal proceeding of the said complaint case. By the said order the learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/468/472/120(B), IPC against the petitioner. It ha? been stated that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any penal offence.2. The short fact leading to the complaint case is that one Revikar Prasad had D. Mat account in Depository Participant Firm M/s. G. Raj & Co. of which the petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director. The complainant had inquired from the petitioner No. 1 regarding the genuineness of the shares. In reply, the petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 3) had confirmed the position of shares of the accused No. 1 in his D. Mat account and had convinced him for purchasing the shares. On that basis the complainant h...
Kartik Chandra Paul Vs. Smt. Baruna Tripathy and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar57
Amareshwar Sahay, J.Heard the parties and with their consent this petition is disposed of at this stage itself.1. The relevant facts in short are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Title Suit being title suit No. 1/2001 in the court of Munsiff, Ghatsila, for specific performance of contract. The defendant-respondents-herein appeared and filed their written statement.2. One of the objections taken in the written statement is that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the plaintiff has not made the six daughters of the father of the defendants as parties to the suit.3. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application before the trial court for a direction to the defendants to disclose the name of those six daughters who have not been made parties. This application of the plaintiff was rejected. Subsequently the petitioner again filed such an application for direction to the defendant to disclose the names of those six daughters, but the court below reject...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »