Jharkhand Court April 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.
Laxmi Devi Shroff Adarsh Sanskrit College Vs. the Regional Provident F ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ730Jhar
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been instituted mainly for the reason that initially an exparte order was passed by respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1952'). As the order was exparte, an application was preferred by the present petitioner for quashing and setting aside the exparte order under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952. Thereafter, no decision has been taken upon this review application, preferred under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 and directly an attachment order has been passed by respondent No. 3 dated October 10, 2007 (Annexure 10 to the memo of present petition). Two accrued rights vested in the present petitioner have been taken away; firstly the review application preferred by the petitioner under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 ought to have been decided on merits and secondly right to prefer an appeal under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 has also been taken aw...
Basant Kumar Jhawar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-18-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ265
ORDERJaya Roy, J.1. In this case office has pointed out as to whether the instant two restoration petitions are maintainable or not. In view of this office note, heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the opposite parties on the point of maintainability of this petition.2. The petitioner has filed the instant two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of Criminal Revision No. 646 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 777 of 2006 which were dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner vide order dated 29.7.2008 by this court. The petitioner has filed above mentioned Criminal Revision No. 646 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 18.3.2006 passed by Sri K.K.Srivastava, learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 30/89 (Patna Vigilance Case No. 005/89) registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120B/201 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act 1988 whereby the petitioner's prayer for discharge was rejected...
Nirmal Shashi Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2152
D.N. Patel, J.1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent Nos. 5 to 10.2. Permission as prayed for to delete of the name of the respondent Nos. 5 to 10, is granted, because they are not necessary party.3. Present petition has been preferred for getting correct notional date of promotion on post of Inspector. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly submitted that in violation of law, promotion of the petitioner has been denied in the year 1997 on the post of Inspector from the post of Sub-Inspector.4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that initially when the matter was taken up in the year 1997 for promotion on the posts of Inspector, the cases of all the Sub-Inspectors who were junior and senior to petitioner were considered by the concerned respondent authority and they have been promoted in the year 1997 on the post of Inspectors, but the case of the petitioner was not considered only for the reason that the service records o...
Lalit Prasad Gupta and anr. Vs. Brajendra Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-18-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Jhar3
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard Mr. L.K. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants at length, who assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14-6-2005, passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 1 of 1991, whereby it has been ordered and decreed that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) and defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 (respondent Nos. 2,3, and 4) are legatees in the last Will and Testament of the Testator-Hawaldari Ram Gupta and are entitled for grant of Letter of Administration regarding the Original Will annexed with the said grant with respect to subject matter of the Will.3. The plaintiff-Brajendra Prasad Gupta (respondent No. 1) filed an application for grant of Letter of Administration with respect to the Will dated 9-6-1970 executed by Hawaldari Ram Gupta. Hawaldari Ram Gupta died on 14-1-1978. The opposite parties therein challenged the said Will and thereupon the s...
Swatantra Prakash Gupta Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Jhar13
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief(s):1. For quashing the communication/order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondents declaring that the petitioner is not eligible for taking the benefits of one time settlement scheme (OTS Scheme) for liquidation of his debt.2. For quashing the specific clause of the OTS Scheme under which the promoters/guarantors of the Unit against which sale order has been issued and auction for retention of the Unit as per the terms of the sale order, has not been taken by them, shall not be eligible for taking benefits of OTS Scheme.3. For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to issue the application form of OTS Scheme to the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefits of settling the dues under OTS Scheme.By introducing a further prayer through the amendment of the writ application, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notic...
Jay Mangal Kumar @ Jai Mangal Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand, Throug ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2442
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.I.A. No. 1058/2009In this interlocutory application the respondent Nos. 8-11 have prayed for recalling the interim order dated 20.3.09 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 3154/2007. By order dated 20.3.09 the said writ petition was admitted for hearing and an interim order was passed in absence of the respondents, as follow:Until further orders, the impugned order dated 4.5.2007 passed by the Notified Area Committee shall be non-operative.According to the respondents, by the said impugned order dated 4.5.07, the plan for construction of a building was sanctioned by the N.A.C in favour of the respondent Nos. 8-11. The writ petitioner sought to assail the said plan mainly on the ground that after the amendment in the Constitution, and introduction of part IX (A), the Municipality or Notified Area Committee became non-operative and has got no jurisdiction to sanction the map and as such the said order is nonest and without jurisdiction.In this application the respon...
Manish Khemka Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3770
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the first information report of Jagarnathpur P.S. case No. 36 of 2008 (G.R No. 202 of 2008) instituted under Sections 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8/9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers' Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.2. The case of the prosecution is that one Raghav Nandan Prasad, District Mining Officer, Chaibasa on receiving information relating to illegal storage of iron ores came along with other Mining Officials at Mauza- Karanjia and found Iron ore fines/blue dust stored at several places over Hatgamharia-Jaitgarh Road. On enquiry, it could be known that iron ores taken from the mines situated in the State of Orissa was meant to be transported to Haldia Port still it was stored at Mauza Karanjia which under the challan was not permissible and thereby transporters including the petitioner at whose instan...
B. Muthuraman @ Balasubramanian Muthuraman and ors. Vs. State of Jhark ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2165
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Mandu P.S. case No. 493 of 2008 (G.R. No. 4585 of 2008) instituted under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations 2005 as well as Section 52 of the Jharkhand Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960 as also under Sections 21 and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.2. The case of the prosecution is that one Rameshwar Rana Prasad, Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh in course of patrolling and inspection when found coal loaded on 4 trucks without there being transit permit (Form D) as required under Rule 3 of the Jharkhand Minerals Transit Challan Regulations, 2005, an enquiry was made and it could be known that coal had been loaded at Ghato Colliery belonging to Tata. Thus, it has been alleged that accused persons by indulging themselves, in the mann...
Jogesh Gambhir Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4504
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application is directed against the order dated 25.1.2006 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC VII, Ranchi in Cr. Rev. No. 136 of 2002 affirming the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 30.9.2002 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case giving rise this application are that petitioner-complainant, proprietor of a firm known as M/s.Kailash Investment lodged a complaint bearing complaint case No. 489 of 2001 stating therein that he having been in need of vehicles approached accused M.K.Somani, (accused No. 2) a dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited and enquired about the availability of the vehicles, viz. cars and vans and also about the delivery time of the said vehicles. Upon which, accused M.K.Somani told him that there is a scheme whereby if the person books more vehicles, he will be getting good rebate and also gift at the time of delivery of the vehicles which would take 3-4 mont...
Satish Chandra Barnwal Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2706
1. This revision application is against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Koderma in S.T. No. 121 of 2007.2. The revision of the judgment has been sought on the ground that the evidences of P.W.-3, P.W.-14, P.W.-15 and P.W.-18 have not been duly considered by the learned court below and the accused-opposite party No. 2 has been erroneously acquitted.3. Mr. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is a failure on the part of the learned trial court as he has not considered the conduct of the accused and vital piece of evidence and has recorded his finding illegally. The impugned judgment is vitiated and fit to be set aside on account of non-consideration of material evidences. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh and Ors. v. Ambika Yadav and Anr. : 2004 (7) SCC 665 and submitted that the revisional court can set aside an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »