Jharkhand Court February 2010 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.
Lambodar Pandit Vs. State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31/01/2002, contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition, thereby the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, rejected the representation filed by the petitioner for his reinstatement in service pursuant to the order dated 20/12/1999, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3258 of 1998.3. The case of the petitioner is that for appointment to the post of untrained Science Teacher in the District of Sahibganj, an advertisement was published, against which the petitioner applied for the said post. He was called upon to appear in interview by issue of Annexure-1 by the District Superintendent of Education, Santhal Pargana. The petitioner faced the interview and thereafter, an office order dated 18/04/1983 was issued appointing him as untrained Science Teacher in the Middle School at Porraiyahat. The petitioner joined the said school on 09/07/1983 and he was discharging his duty peacefully.4. All of a sudden on ...
Babita Kumari Pathak @ Babita Pathak Vs. Satya Prakash Pathak
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. By filing the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Title Suit No. 29/2009 filed by the opposite party, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Ranchi to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur.3. The opposite party, who is the husband of the petitioner, filed the above Matrimonial Title Suit for a Decree for Divorce against the petitioner on different grounds.4. On the other hand, the petitioner alleges that her husband has filed the Matrimonial Divorce Suit only in order to save his skin from the criminal case filed by her under Section 498A, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He (husband) being an employee of News Paper 'Prabhat Khabar', taking the undue advantage of his position, he is extending threats to her.5. It is further stated that her father is already dead and her marriage was solemnised by her brother and she is l...
S.N. Singh @ Satyanarayan Singh and D.K. Pradhan @ Dilip Kumar Pradhan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case bearing No. C-403 of 2008 (T.R. No. 917 of 2009) including the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences undo Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Cede has teen taken against the petitioners and others.2. The facts leading to this case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2, a permanent employee of Central Coalfield Limited working as Pump Khalasi at Saunda 'D' Colliery, Police Station Patraru, District-Ramgarh, filed a complaint stating therein that for the benefit of the workers working in the said colliery Karamchari (sic) Sahyog Samity Saunda 'D' Colliery was established, of which Project Officer used to be the Chairman whereas at the re event point of time, one Ashok Kumar, official of the Patratu Block was In-charge-Secretary of the said Co-operative ...
Sumi Hembrom Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. I have heard Mr. Din Dayal Sana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika vide appointment letter dated 26th August, 2007. The said appointment letter is at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that, thereafter, the petitioner had undergone the necessary training, successfully and, thereafter, the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika and she was also paid salary by the concerned respondent authorities and, thereafter, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by respondent No. 5 on 22nd April, 2008. The said termination order is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition, which is under challenge. No notice, no hearing has been given by the respondents before the termination of the services of the petitioner The so-called inquiry, which is alleged to have taken place, is also an ex-parte inquiry and the inquiry officer has r...
Rabindra Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier in the writ application the informant was impleaded as respondent No. 2 inadvertently as the case arising of a police case is well represented through the state of Jharkhand on whose behalf even a counter affidavit has been filed and, therefore, the petitioner though the proper to delete the name of the informant (respondent No. 2) aS the informant is being well represented by the State of Jharkhand and the disposal of the case would be delayed on account of non service of notice upon respondent No. 2. and therefore under this situation prayer has been made to delete the name of respondent No. 2.3. In the facts and circumstances as stated above the name of respondent No. 2 is allowed to be deleted from the memo of application.4. Accordingly, the prayer's allowed.5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the pe...
Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Dinanath Verma Vs. Nicco Corporation Limited
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the District Judge, Jamshedpur in Misc. (P) No. 20 of 2009. By that order the petitioner's prayer for transfer of Misc. Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Ghatshila to the Court of the learned District Judge, Jamshedpur under Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the District Judge, Jamshedpur.2. The bare facts necessary for decision of this writ petition are that there was an arbitration award against which the present petitioners filed an objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Jharkhand High Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court held the objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable before the High Court. The matter was taken in appeal under Section 37 o...
Md. Mazid @ Abdul Majid Qurashi and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. A letter was saint by the Government Pleader, Hazaribagh to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh alleging that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has passed an erroneous order and that it was a fit case for filing revision against that order and accordingly seeking advice of the Deputy Commissioner. On the basis of this letter Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh started revisional proceedings under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.3. The petitioner has challenged these proceedings on the ground that unless a proper revision is filed before the Deputy Commissioner, these proceedings could not have been initiated or continued.4. Section 16 of the said Act is reproduced below for ready reference:16. Revision- The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order mad...
Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of admission.2. Admittedly, the petitioner had, on an earlier occasion also, approached this Court with the same prayer for a direction to the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. With certain observations, the writ application was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities of the respondents and with a corresponding direction to them to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules.3. It appears that the petitioner had submitted his representation but his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that such prayer for compassionate appointment has become stale after more than ten years of the date of demise of the deceased employee.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that in response to the representation filed by the petitioner, it ...
Surendra Kumar Thakur @ Surendra Kumar @ Suraj Vs. the State of Jharkh ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2003 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitioner and others to face trial under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. The informant, who is father of the deceased, lodged a first information report on 13.2.2002 alleging murder of his daughter by the accused persons. On the basis of F.I.R., a case was instituted and the Investigating Officer arrested the husband of the deceased and after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. against the husband Rajesh Kumar Thakur only. So far other accused persons including petitioner are concerned, final form was submitted. The Sessions Court proceeded with the trial against one of the accused persons, namely...
Santosh Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties (sic) consent this review application is being disposed of at this (sic).2. The review petitioner has filed the civil (sic) petition (sic) the judgment/order dated 22.12.2009 passed (sic) Writ petition (sic) W.P.(S) No. 2195 of 2003, stating therein that though in the (sic) petition the prayer (sic) made to direct the respondents to absorb/(sic) the petitioner as per his seniority with continuity to his service against (sic) other posts, equivalent to the posts which he was holding in terms of (sic) Government policy, out during the pendency of the writ petition (sic) interlocutory application being I.A. No. 392 of 2009 was filed, werein it stated that during the pendency of the writ petition a resolution as contained in memo dated 30.5.2007 was issued by the Secretary, Department of Human Rescurces Development, Government of Jharkhand, by which it was 756 employees including the petitioner of Non Formal Education...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »