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.
Ramswaroop Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar131; 2009CriLJ4499; [2009(2)JCR267(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 22.8.2008 passed by learned Sessions ludge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Rev. No. 185 of 2008 whereby leaned Sessions Judge confirmed the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by learn-d Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in case No. C1-540 of 2006 wherein prayer made by the petitioner for sending cheque and the mortgage deed before an expert for examination and comparison of the signatures appearing therein with any other document having admitted signatures of the petitioner was rejected.2. It appears that complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case stating therein that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the complainant-opposite party No. 2 and got a deed of mortgage executed in favour of opposite party No. 1 mortgaging one Opel Corsa Car and also handed over a cheque to the complainant with a promise to repay the loan amount within a period of six months but the petitioner failed to pay...
Anima Saha and anr. Vs. Bhagat Ram Mandhyan and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR257(Jhr)]
1. This appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pakur in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 13 of 2004 whereby he dismissed the claim case holding that the identity of the offending vehicle has not been proved and the accident took place by which vehicle is doubtful.2. The claimants who are the widow and minor daughter filed the aforementioned claim case claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased-husband of appellant No. 1, Gurupada Saha, was a passenger in a truck bearing No. UTW 9222 and while he was trying to get down from that truck, the truck proceeded, as a result of which, he fell on the ground and came under the wheel.3. The owner of the aforesaid truck bearing registration No. UTW 9222 appeared and denied the factum of accident by the said truck. However he stated that truck No. UTW 9222 was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company.4. The respondent-Insurance Company also appeared and...
Anirudh Manjhi and Ram Bilash Manjhi and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3751
Pradeep Kumar, J.1. Both these criminal appeals i.e Cr. Appeal No. 335/2001 filed by appellant, Anirudh Manjhi and Cr. Appeal No. 184/2001 filed by appellant, Ram Bilash Manjhi, Ram Prit Manhjhi and Bigni Devi arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sri Rameshwar Tiwari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamu at Dlatonganj in Sessions Trial No. 34/97 by which judgment he convicted all the appellants under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 2 years for charges under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of the first information report given by Satyendra Manjhi (P.W.9) on 4.7.1996 at 10.30 a.m. In his written complaint, the informant has stated that his sister was married to Anirudh Manjhi son of Kailash Manjhi, whenever she...
Ajitabh Kujur @ Tunnu, Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR354(Jhr)]
Pradeep Kumar, J.1. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants. The matter was heard along with A.P.P appearing for the State.2. It appears that this appeal No. 300 of 1991 (P) was admitted by the Patna High Court on 26.08.1991. The prayer for bail of the appellants was rejected on 11.10.1991. On 16.05.1994, the Hon'ble High Court directed that the appeal will be heard along with Cr. Appeal No. 311 of 1991, Cr. Appeal No. 348 of 1991 and Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 1991 arising out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 27/87104/90.3. Subsequently, hearing of all the appellants started with all analogous criminal appeals on 28.07.1994. The appeals were heard continuously on 28.07.1994, 29.07.1994, 01.08.1994, 03.08.1994, 04.08.1994 and 05.081994. Subsequently, on 08.08.1994, It was submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the accused Ajitabh Kujur @ Tunnu has escaped from the jail premises.4. Whereupon ...
Dr. Basudeo Singh Vs. Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR352(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:1. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in particular) to immediately and forthwith make necessary corrections and/or amendments in the notification in so far as it relates to the Department of History issued on 29.5.1997 under the seal and signature of the respondent No. 3 purporting to be under the orders of the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been confirmed at a date later than the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and whereby the petitioner has further been made junior to them,2. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in particular) to immediately and forthwith issue a notification placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 4 to which he is lawfully...
Smt. Alorani Das (Sarkar) Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR356(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 mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately make payment of the salary of the petitioner for the period 21.2.1990 to 31.3.1995 on the ground that for this period she had been restrained from doing her duty by the State authorities, namely M/o Incharge PHC/Dhanbad and the Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad,(i) Firstly by unilateral relieving in view of an illegal cancellation order to her original transfer order dated 11.8.1989, because the disputed cancellation order was finally decided and declared illegal and ultimately set aside under order dated 13.5.1991 in T.S./24/90 passed by the Addl. Munsif Ist. Dhanbad and contesting against the same J/Drs. Repeatedly lost twice at District level but never went before any higher Court challenging the decree itself thereafter up-till date; and(ii) secondly by ignoring and neglecting compliance of such a...
Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR337(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing the communication dated 14/19.9.1998 issued by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been requested to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the alleged inspection report of the said Labour Enforcement Officer and also to show-cause as to. why legal action under Section 23 and/or 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 (hereinafter referred as the said 'Act' for the sake of brevity) should not be taken against them for the alleged irregularities mentioned in the said inspection report and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from assuming jurisdiction and taking any action against the petitioners under provisions of Section 23...
GodwIn Ekka Vs. the State of Bihar, Now the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2459
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The main point sought to be answered in this appeal is as to whether Dar-raiyati settlement made in the year 1934 without permission of the Deputy Commissioner is violative of Section 46 or any other provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'), attracting mischief of Section 71A of the said Act.2. The appellant claims to have validly possessed land of Revisional Survey Khata No. 257, measuring an area of 23.07 acres of village Gotra, P.S. Simdega, District Gumla. The said land of Khata No. 257 was recorded as KAIMI in the names of Mana Kharia and Suleman Kharia in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights as tenants in common with note of specific possession of the plots in the remarks column.3. Mana Kharia was also known as Emmanuel Kharia. He mortgaged the land of his share to Manonit Ekka, mother of the appellant, on 14th March, 1934.4. Suleman Kharia, another co-tenant, made a Dar-raiyat Settlement in favour of Manonit Ek...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›