Court : Jharkhand
Jaya Roy, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.5.1992 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 28 of 1985 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence has been passed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Pati Sao (P.W.5) along with his brother Khirodhar Sao (deceased) and brother-in-law Kaila Sao (P.W.4) at about 7.00 A.M. on 15.6.1992, went to plough the field popularly known as Katash Tanr belonging to Kaila Sao. When they ploughed a small portion of the field then all the aforesaid accused persons along with the wife of Jitan Mahto and two wives of accused Jugeshwar Mahto and the wife and the daughter of accused Hemlal Mahto, all having Lathi and danda in their hands arrived there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for grant of the benefit of Junior Selection Grade on Graduate Trained Scale with effect from 01.04.1981 and of Senior Selection Grade with effect from 01.04.1983.3. The grounds on which the petitioner has raised his claims are two fold - firstly, the policy decision taken by the State Government in the concerned department, as reflected in the Government Circular dated 18.12.1984, and secondly, that the same benefits have been granted to other teachers similarly situated like the petitioner.4. From the admitted facts of the petitioner's case, it appears that he was initially appointed as a teacher on the Matric Trained Scale. Subsequently he obtained a higher qualification of Intermediate whereupon he was given the scale applicable to the Intermediates. Later, he obtained a graduate degree and in pursuance of such degree, he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 207/2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning one person for giving evidence has been rejected.3. The facts, which are relevant , are that the complainant opposite party No. 2, fled the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of quarter in question and, therefore, committed an offence under the said Act. The petitioner appeared in the complaint case and filed application that the person, who lodged complaint case, has no authority inasmuch as the Board of Director of Tata Steel Limited company has not passed any resolution authorizing the person to file the complaint. The Court below after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 1624 of 1999, which was finally decided by the judgment and order of this Court dated 23.9.2002.3. A copy of that judgment is enclosed as Annexure 9 to the present writ petition.4. After noting the points argued from the respondents' side, the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 23.9.2002 was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.5. Strangely, while dismissing the writ petition, certain positive directions were issued to the respondents.6. In this writ petition this Court is not sitting in appeal over the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge dated 23.9.2002. Therefore, while deciding the present writ petition, it is not open to this Court to modify or change the directions given by the judgment and order dated 23.09.2002. What has to be seen is whether by the impugned order enclosed as Annexure 12 to this writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Judgment dated 23.03.2006, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2000, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was dismissed and the order dated 18.05.2000, passed by the Estate Officer, D.V.C., B.T.P.S., Bokaro (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ petition, was affirmed whereby, the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop of size 15' x 15', situated opposite of Baba Medical in D.V.C., B.T.P.S., new Market, on D.V.C. Land at Bokaro Thermal, in Govindpur, Bokaro Thermal Police Station, on the ground that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the licence granted to him by unauthorisedly encroaching more than the area allotted to him for construction of shop.3. There is no dispute of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay her compensation for the loss of life of her husband who had died in extremist violence and also to grant compassionate appointment to her son.2. The petitioner's case is that her husband was a social worker and used to assist the police in search operations against the extremists. In course of such police operation, on account of extremist violence on 23.9.1998, the petitioner's husband was fatly injured and he died. In spite of such death on account of extremist violence, the concerned authorities of the respondent State Government have not paid any amount of compensation to the petitioner and in spite of her repeated representations, neither have they considered the petitioner's claim for compensation nor for grant of compassionate appointment to her son.3. In the counter-affidavit, as it appears, though the respondents have acknowledged that the petitioner's husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction for quashing the office order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure-18) issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the pay scale which was earlier sanctioned to the petitioner vide office order dated 18.08.2003, has been cancelledA further prayer has been made for issuing a direction upon the respondents to forthwith fix the final pension of the petitioner on the basis of the scale sanctioned as per the aforementioned office order dated 18.08.2003 and also for a direction to release the entire arrears of pension on the basis of the aforesaid scale besides releasing the full and final pension to the petitioner.3. The facts of the petitioner's case is that he had joined on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chhotanagpur Zone, Ranchi on 04.05.1965.Subsequently, due to the abolition of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Both the petitions are taken together almost for the common cause. Petitioner Girish Kumar Sharan has preferred the Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2008 by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 15.7.2008 passed in G.R. No. 1276 of 2006, arising out of Gopikandar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2006 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 417/376/315 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and for quashment of his entire criminal prosecution whereas, the Cr. Rev. No. 565 of 2009 is directed against the order impugned dated 7.7.2009 passed in S.C. Case No. 159 of 2009, arising out of above case, by which the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Durnka, after hearing the parties, found prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner Girish Kumar Sharan for the alleged offences and proposed charges under Sections 376/417/313 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. I have heard both sides.2. The petitioner's establishment was inspected and a case of alleged theft of energy was detected because of which the power supply of the petitioner's unit was disconnected Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. The said provision empowers the Board to disconnect the supply upon detection of theft.3. Subsequently, an assessment was made of about Rs. 40,00,000/- (forty lacs) Under Section 126. The assessment is presently under challenge in an appeal Under Section 127.4. In the meantime the petitioner obtained an order from a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 450 of 2009 on 21.12.2009 for restoration of the electricity supply upon deposit of 50% of the amount assessed. The supply was restored although not promptly, according to the petitioner. Subsequently, it was again disconnected and again reconnected. According to the petitioner's averment the supply is continuing, but the petitioner is aggrieved by a notice given to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
R.K. Merathia, J.1. This writ petition has been filed mainly for quashing the order dated 19.1.2003 (Annexure-2) passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central Region), Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority under payment of Gratuity Act 1972 allowing the appeal of the management-respondents.2. Petitioner filed an application for payment of gratuity claiming that his initial date of appointment was 01.06.1959. The case of the respondents was that the date of initial appointment of the petitioner was 1.9.1972; and that he was not entitled to claim Gratuity for the period prior to 1.9.1972. The said application was disposed of by order dated 31.3.2003 holding that petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,42,847/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Seven) only as difference of Gratuity holding that the initial date of appointment of the petitioner was 1.6.1959. The said order was challenged by the management-respondents by filing appeal before the appellate authority...
Tag this Judgment!