Jharkhand Court March 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.
Hadi Ram Singh Sardar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ267
1. The sole appellant Hadi Ram Singh Sardar has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1994 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.1992 at about 11:00 A.M., the informant Hablu Murmu (P.W.-4) and his elder brother Sona Ram Murmu @ Bedgu (deceased) were going to village Gotultand on a bullock cart for bringing soil. It is further stated that when the bullock cart reached in front of the house of appellant, Hadi Ram Singh Sardar (appellant) suddenly came out of his house and gave 5-6 farsa blow on the deceased due to that deceased received injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that on query made by informant, appellant disclosed that the deceased had illicit relation with his wife and because of that...
Shano Singhdeo and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4718
Pradeep Kumar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-9-2001 passed by Shri Prabhu Nath Lal, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 1996 against the appellants namely Shano Singhdeo and Birbal Gopal by which both the appellants have been found guilty for the offence Under Section 326/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo S.I. for 3 months.2. The prosecution case was started on the F.I.R. given by the informant (P.W.3), Abhimanyu Nayak on 8-3-1993 at 14.45 hours stating therein that on the same day at about 2.30 in the after noon, after playing holi, he along with Baijnath Behera and Dilip Kumar Pali alias Kalia Pati were going towards the river for bath and when they reached near the Jagannath Temple, then suddenly the appellants/accused nam...
Jayant Karnad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Ministry of Defence and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar144
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard the parties.2. A piece of land measuring an area of 4.46 acres, bearing M.S plot No. 557 of Ward No. 7 (old), situated at Morhabadi, Ranchi owned and possessed by one B.M. Lakshman Rao, maternal grandfather of the petitioner situated contiguous to the land requisitioned by the Army was forcibly occupied by the authorities of the Army in the year 1943 but the occupation of the land was admitted by the Army only with effect from 1.4.1946, that too without there being any settlement of compensation. As the property was occupied forcibly by the personnel of the Army, the said B.M. Lakshman Rao went on agitating the matter. Ultimately Army personnel agreed in the year 1957 to grant recurring compensation @ Rs. 446/- per annum from 1.4.1946 to 30.3.1960. In course of time, when the value of the land increased considerably, the said B.M. Lakshman Rao took up the matter for enhancing recurring compensation to the extent of Rs. 3600/- per annum which was enhanced to Rs. ...
Sanjay Kumar and anr. Vs. Nanhku Prasad Yadav and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1988
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the Order dated 16.01.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 7 of 2003 by the learned Sub Judge Ist, Koderma whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to reject the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Plaintiffs/petitioners to transpose the plaintiffs/Respondents (14 to 18) as defendants in the suit and thereby has acted illegally and with material irregularity which has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners as also it has occasioned a failure of Justice.2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is as to whether the learned court below was justified in rejecting the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the co-plaintiffs were not taking any interest in the suit since they were interested parties and has thus, jeopardized the case ...
Kaushal Kishore Singh @ Kaushal Kishore Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR478(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner served Army's Engineering Corps for 20 years as Sainik Nayak. During his tenure at Army, the petitioner passed 2nd Class Certificate Examination and also received Security Training involving handling of weapons, safeguarding Government property from theft, sabotage and fire risk. When the petitioner retired from Army, he was in search of civil employment and in that course, the petitioner was found suitable by the authority of the State Rural Development Institute, Ranchi to do the Job of Security Supervisor as the petitioner had that kind of training and as such, he was allowed to join as Security Supervisor on 25.6.2005 on a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month and discharged his duties to the full satisfaction of the authorities but the Director of the said Institute, who succeeded Mr. Sajal Chakravorty all on a sudden stopped taking work as Security Supervisor from the petitioner from 31.1.2007 without any rhyme ...
Chit Bahal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2006
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for following reliefs: A. The rejection order dated 21.09.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 be quashed.B. The Office order dated 15.01.2003 so far the petitioner is concerned, whereby and whereunder his first time bound promotion has been cancelled be quashed.C. The respondents be directed not to give effect to the office order dated 21.9.2002 and 15.01.2003 and to consider his further promotion in accordance to the office notification dated 18.12.1989.D. The respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion against the Super Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade on and from the date it is due against the vacant sanction posts and to give all consequential benefits thereon.2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was initially appointed as Survey Store Clerk as a Grade-III employee on 14.2.1963. He was given time bound promotion vide an order dated 17.10.19...
Mohit Lal Mahto @ Naresh Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2008
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 04.08.2007, taking cognizance of the offence Under Section 414 IPC solely on the ground that the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation as prescribed Under Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the FIR (Annexure-2) lodged against the petitioner on 17.06.2000, it would appear that the commission of the offence Under Section 414 IPC has been alleged to have taken place on 17.06.2000, whereas the police submitted charge sheet in the case against the petitioner Under Section 414 IPC on 30.07.2007, on the basis of which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence Under Section 414 IPC on 04 08.2007, i.e. after more that seven years from the alleged dated of occurrence.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. provides a period of three years only as ...
BipIn Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1990
R.R. Prasad, J.1. As the question of maintainability of this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been raised by the office, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and also other counsel appearing in other writ applications' maintainability of which has also been questioned, were heard.2. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that invariably whenever writ application is field for quashment of any order passed by a criminal court, Stamp Reporter raises the question of maintainability presumably for the reason that other statutory remedy by way of revision or remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the petitioners but that objection is totally uncalled for in view of the settled law that availability of statutory remedy never obliterates power of the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned Counsel in this respect referred to decisions...
Ram Ratan Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR1997
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, rule, order or direction to quash the order dated 28.9.99 passed by respondent No. 2 in Land Restoration Revision No. 32/94 allowing the Revision and setting aside the order dated 18.6.88 passed by respondent No. 3 in Land Restoration Appeal No. 28/1986 and confirming the order dated 4.3.86 passed by respondent No. 5 in Land Restoration case No. 66/85 whereby the respondent No. 6 in purported exercise of its power under Section 46(4)(a) C.N.T. Act illegally passed order for restoration of Land belongs to the petitioner's wife Smt. Chintamani Devi in favour of respondent No. 5.2. The facts, in brief are set out as under:The dispute involves an area measuring 0.24 acres of which 0.12 acres of plot No. 423 and 0.12 acre of plot No. 429 under Khata No. 141 of village Cantonment, Thana No. 157, P.S. and Sistt. Hazaribag The Khata No. 141 is recorded in...
Joseph Munda Vs. Most. Fudi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar115
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.4.1988 passed by Addl. Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 26 of 1983, whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1983 passed by Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi and, decreed Title Suit No. 132 of 1978.2. In terms of order dated 23.3.1995, this Second Appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: -Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs being the agnatic heirs of Rashu Munda, have got valid title to the suit lands and in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were entitled to recover possession from the defendants, who were admittedly in possession3. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 132 of 178 for declaration of their title in respect of the suit land being Khata Nos. 5 and 148 situated at village Siyyankel, P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »