Jharkhand Court March 2009 Judgments
Bhim Upadhyay and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3669
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners Bhim Upadhyay, Uday Upadhyay, Parmila Devi, Mukesh Upadhyay & Om Prakash Upadhyay apprehend their arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 341/323/504/354/427/34 I.P.C. as also under Section S.C. & ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. The informant Subhadra Devi who bolohgs to a member of scheduled caste alleged against the petitioners Uday Upadhyay, Bhim Upadhyay, Om Prakash Upadhyay & Mukesh Upadhyay that they had tried to raise wall illegally on the land of the informant and they had also tried to demolish the home of the informant, thereby stopped her exit. On 23.07.2008 at about 5 p.m when the informant opposed their high handedness it was alleged that the petitioner Uday Upadhyay & Bhim Upadhyay abused her by calling her Dusadhin' and the latter thrashed whereas, the other petitioners Om Prakash Upadhyay, Mukesh Upadhyay & Parmila Devi abused by using filthy languages against her.3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tripathy, to begin with, s...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Chandra Kochhar and T.V. Narayanan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4720
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. These two cases arise out of the same complaint and the impugned order dated 30.11.2004 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour Act against the petitioners of the said cases along with another accused namely Vivek Mishra. Said Vivek Mishra is not a party in these petitions.2. At the time of argument, common questions were raised on the basis of the facts and as such both the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The cognizance has been taken on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the whole complaint petition there Is no specific allegation against the said petitioners namely Mrs. Chandra Kochhar and T.V. Narayanan that they are the persons responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment at Ranchi. They have been sought to be pros...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Kumar Kesarwani @ Amit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2120
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution registered as Garhwa P.S. case No. 218 of 2006 under Sections 304(B)/498A/341/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the prosecution as disclosed in the complaint case No. 538 of 2006 giving rise to Garhwa P.S. case No. 218 of 2006 needs to be taken notice of.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Richa Kesarwani, daughter of the complainant, was married to the petitioner in the year 2003 Immediately thereafter accused person started putting forth demand of a Car as dowry and in order to get the demand fulfilled, accused person started subjecting her to torture physically as well as mentally and even the marks of violence were noticed by the witnesses when he had occasion to come to the place of deceased.4. Further case is that on 19.7.2006 when the de...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeshwari Das Vs. B.C.C.L. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ207Jhar
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner's case appears to have a chequered history. He was appointed as a Miner Loader under the erstwhile Murlidih Colliery way back in the year 1967. In the same year he contracted Tuberculosis and remained under medical treatment at the C.H.D., Dhanbad. After recovery from his illness, he obtained a certificate from C.H.D., Dhanbad declaring him fit for duty. However, inspite of the fitness certificate issued by the doctor, the erstwhile Management of the Murlidih colliery did not allow him to join duty. In the meantime, all the private mines including the Murlidih colliery was taken over by the new management of the B.C.C.L. under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973. The petitioner approached the new management for allowing him to resume duty but the same was refused even by the new Management. The petitioner pursued his claim by raising an industrial dispute. Initial attempt for conciliation by the Commissioner, having failed, the dispute was refe...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. Swapan Kumar Ghosh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1983
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:i) For direction to the Respondent authorities for refund of the amount which has been recovered from the petitioner's salary with retrospective effect i.e. from the year 2000 without any notice to the petitioner after reverting the petitioner from the post of university Professor to the post of Reader giving effect the Section 58(10) of the State Universities Act, however, the same is effective w.e.f. 28.8.1993, and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of University Professor w.e.f. 21.11.1985 (Annexure-1) issued by the then Bhagalpur University as per the settled principles of law,ii) For payment of retiral dues to the petitioner such as Gratuity, G.P.F., Leave encashment, Group Insurance etc in the scale of University Professor and also for fixation of final pension as University Professor to the petitioner.2. A detailed argument has been made with regard to the applicabili...
Tag this Judgment!Jamil Akhtar @ Md. Jamil Akhtar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2160
ORDERJaya Roy, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 27.8.2008 passed in complaint case No. 43 of 2003 by the court of Shri Rakesh Kumar Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is rejected.2. The case in brief is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint petition before the court of C.J.M. Ranchi, stating therein that the complainant Zohara Khatoon married with Jamil Akhtar (petitioner) on 5.5.1992 according to Muslim Law and Rites and they are living peacefully with his matrimonial family. Thereafter from the said wedlock two children were born to the complainant. The petitioner is employed at Central Institute of Psychatry Kanke as Clerk. The accused No. 3 Olga Pentoni is also working at the same Hospital as Nurse. The accused No. 1 (petitioner) and accused No. 3 had developed extra marital relations between them and on protest made by the complainant the husband used to assault and ill tre...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Subhas Chandra Sarkar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1978
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:(A) The respondents be directed to fix the final pension of the petitioner immediately and to issue his authority slip and Pension Order on the basis of the last pay drawn by him.(B) The respondents be directed to pay his Group Insurance amount of Rs. 5,577/- along with the interest which has been illegally recovered from his retirement dues.(C) The respondents be directed to pay the arrears of pay due to difference of D.A. from Jan'1972 to Sept'1993 with statutory interest.(D) The respondents be directed to pay his all legal dues including the Security amount which is still lying with head Post Master, Singhbhum, Chaibasa.(E) The respondents be directed to pay the rest 10% provisional pension which is due for the period from Sept'1995 to Aug'1997 but has been with held awaiting fixation of pension from Accountant General2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is t...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Gua Chiria Khan Shramik Sangh T ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1986
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and transmit the records relating to the case of the petitioner to this Hon'ble Court so that your Lordship on perusal thereof may do conscionable justice to the petitioner by quashing, setting aside, modifying, canceling, varying and /or altering any order, and, in particular (i) the Notification as contained in Notification No. S.O. 664 E dated 09.06.2003 whereby and whereunder the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970 has prohibited the employment of contract labour in the job/work of raising and tracking of iron ore in the establishment of Manoharpur Mines of Steel Authority of India Limited, Chiriya, District-Singhbhum-West, Bihar with effect from the date of publication of the notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR472(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:(1) For an appropriate writ in the nature of certorari for quashing the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Labour. Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner whereby it has been decided that the petitioner will not get his salary for the period 30.10.1999 to 8.12.1999 i.e., for the period in which the petitioner was in custody and further it has been decided that the said period will be treated as a break in his service and a further punishment has been inflicted that 10% of his pension be deducted with cumulative effect.(2) For a further writ of or in the nature of mandamus be issued from this Hon'ble Court directing the concerned respondents to pay the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner forthwith and immediately without giving effect to the order impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Kokia and ors. Vs. Dindayal Munda
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR423(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.6.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No. 9 of 2000, affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2000, passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I. Sahibganj in Title Suit No. 26 of 1988.3. Mr. Alok Lal, appearing for the appellants, challenged the impugned judgments on various grounds.4. The plaintiffs-appellants filed this suit for declaration of their right, title and ownership over the suit lands of Girdhari and for a declaration that under the tribal law the issueless widow had only the right of maintenance.5. The trial Court dismissed the suit, after considering the evidences on records.6. The appellants filed by said appeal. After considering the respective cases of the parties and the evidences on record, the appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was held, inter alia by the Courts below that in the judgment passed in earlier suit ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »