Jharkhand Court April 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.
Shiv Shankar Dey Vs. Damodar Ram
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Bokaro dated 19th February, 2009 in Title Suit No. 23 of 2007 whereby, the written statement tendered by the present petitioner (original defendant) was not accepted by the trial court, under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the Maine is time barred.2. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Bokaro, dated 19th February, 2009 in Title Suit No. 23 of 2007, for the following facts and reasons:(i) It appears from the facts of the case that the respondent, who is original plaintiff, has instituted Title Suit No. 23 of 2007 before the Court of learned Sub Judge-I, Bokaro and the present petitioner is original defendant.(ii) It appears that the original defendant has filed hi...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2009, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2565 of 2007, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.2. The appellant had filed the said writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashment of the order dated 13.11.2002, passed by the Respondent No. 2, by which the petitioner was dismissed from his service against the charge related to moral turpitude for that he was arrested for an offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and further to reinstate him in service on the ground that he was acquitted from the charge that was framed under Section 354 I.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 22.02.2007 and payment of back wages.3. The short fact of the case was that the appellant was working as clerk in the Jharkhand Armed Police-IV at Bokaro. In the meantime, a criminal case was registered against him by the informant, who w...
Shantanu Mazumdar Vs. Vice-chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A No. 451 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application and held that the order dated 25.3.1997 issued by the respondents removing the petitioner from service needs no interference.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:Petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer in Indian Lac Research Institute with effect from 16.12.1992 by office memo dated 10.9.92. Initially, the petitioner was kept on probation for a period of two years from the date of his joining on the post. As per terms of the appointment, period of probation may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. It appears that after the expiry of two years of probationary period some adverse remarks were communicated in the year 1995 which, after accepting detailed representation, were expunged vide order dated 7.8.1996. In 1996, petitioner was ...
Manzar HussaIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2002 and order of sentence dated 03.08.2002 recorded by Shri Akhileshwar Jha, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2000 by which the sole appellant was held guilty under Section 25(1-B) of the Anns Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant P.W. 15 Rahul Sawa delivered his Fard Bayan on 09.02.2000 at Jubilee park, Jamshedpur stating that his father Hari Prasad Sawa (since deceased) had proceeded with his Maruti Steam Car at about 6 a.m. to Jubilee park for a walk as usual in the morning. The informant after some time received telephone call that some unknown person had committed murder of his father by firing shot. He immediately went to Jubilee park upon such infor...
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Vigilan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2009 (Special Case No. 27 of 2009) instituted under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 409, 420, 109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10, 13(1)(e) of the of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to filing of this case are that the Income Tax Department laid a raid in the house of the petitioner on 15.10.2009 where 169 term deposit receipts worth Rs. 12,54,23,337/- of North Bihar Regional Gramin Bank, Murtuza Branch, P.S. Dariapur, District-Chapra were found which were either in the name of the petitioner or his family members.3. That apart, 42 files of the Government Department relating to disciplinary proceeding, tender, transfer and posting were found. The said file as well as the aforesaid term deposit receipts were seized by the Income Tax Department.4. On getting such informatio...
Bihar Air Products Limited Vs. Andhra Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. and Asiatic Oxy ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
Pradeep Kumar, J.1. The first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 passed by Shri S.P. Singh, Sub Judge-II, Saraikela in Money Suit No. 2/95/S.R.1/97, by which judgment the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on contest with cost.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Sub Judge wrongly dismissed the suit giving a finding that the suit is barred by law of limitation and decided issue No. 3 against the plaintiff-appellant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the learned Sub Judge also committed an error of law in deciding issue No. 4 that the court at Saraikela had no jurisdiction to try the suit and as such the judgment of dismissal is bad in law and only fit to be set aside and the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for refund security amount of Rs. 5.75 lakhs with defendant No. 1-Andhra Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. which was deposited with him as per the agreement entered into between the parties.3. On the o...
Birendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad in Koderma G.R.P.S case No. 3 of 2009 whereby Special Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad has rejected the petition dated 23.3.2010 wherein prayer had been made to grant the petitioner compulsive bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts leading to filing of this case are that a dacoity was committed in Howrah-Dehradun Express on 12.2.2009 as soon as it left Hazaribagh Road Station and for that a case was lodged which was registered as Koderma G.R.P.S. case No. 3 of 2009 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against 7-8 unknown persons. In course of investigation, involvement of this petitioner and other accused persons got transpired, upon which two persons were arrested against whom charge sheet was submitted on 22.5.2009 and the investigation was kept open for other accused persons. On ...
Ram Jatan Murmu Vs. Marshila Marandi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
Pradeep Kumar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondent.2. The instant appeal has been filed by Ram Jatan Murmu S/o Babu Ram Murmu, who had earlier filed an application before the trial court Under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act through is grandfather Dhona Murmu for grant of succession certificate which was refused and by the impugned order dated 16th September, 1998, learned District Judge, Sri Harishankar-Prasad, Dumka(S.P.) granted succession certificate to the mother, Marshila Marandi-Respondent No. 1 in the case. After filing of the appeal and during the pendency of the same, the appellant -minor, Ram Jatan Murmu has become major and has prayed to contest the appeal as major, as allowed by order dated 15.4.2010.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since,, appellant is major, as per the Santhal Law under their customary law accepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court and also by this Hon'ble Court in various judgme...
Sajda Khatoon Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation to her for the alleged custodial death of her husband which had occurred while the deceased was under custody at the sub-jail, Simdega.2. The undisputed facts of the case in brief are as follows:The deceased Md. Shamim had sustained injuries on his body as a result of alleged assault made on him by one Md. Rafique, a resident of same mohalla as that of the deceased. In respect of this incident which had occurred on 4.7.2003, a first information report was lodged at the police station. The victim was removed to Sadar Hospital, Simdega where he was given initial treatment, but later, upon being referred by the attending doctor at the Sadar Hospital, Simdega, he was removed to the RIMS, Ranchi.3. After undergoing treatment and upon being cured, he was remanded to judicial custody at sub-jail, Simdega on 13.8.2003. On 22.8.2003, the doctor at the s...
Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathy Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Before considering the question referred by the Supreme Court in the order dated 4th September, 1998 passed on the interlocutory petition filed by the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1998, we would like to state in brief the facts of the case.2. The appellant- Dr. Mrs Sumedha Tipathy was first appointed as the Principal of Bokaro Mahila College on temporary basis by the Governing Body on the basis of an advertisement dated 10.9.1982. On 1.9.1984 the Commission accorded its concurrence for appointment of the appellant initially for a period of six months and subsequently by order dated 2.12.1985 extended the concurrence until further orders or till a final recommendation was made by it for appointment to the post of Principal in the said College. Under those circumstances the petitioner was holding the post of Principal of the College on temporary basis.3. In the year 1992 the Commission invited fresh application by advertisement dated 29.8.92 for the post of Prin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »