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.
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Devi a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application, has challenged the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA Case No. 4 of 2004 whereby in purported exercise of its powers under Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat has held that the petitioner Insurance Company is liable to pay interim compensation to the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the premature death of Satya Narayan Tanti @ Sayid Tanti which had occurred in a road accident involving a motor vehicle (Truck) belonging to the respondent No. 6.2. Respondents 1 to 5 have appeared through their lawyer Sri S. Kumar by executing vakalatnama, but they did not offer any contest either by filing any counter-affidavit or by appearance of their lawyer. Accordingly, this application was taken up for hearing on the merits of the petitioner's writ application.3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned Award of the Tribunal on the following ...
Bokaro Steel Plant Vs. the Workmen Represented by Bokaro Progressive F ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Challenge, in this writ application, is to the Award dated- 30th March, 2003 (Annexure-4) of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, passed in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994, whereby the Tribunal has answered the Reference in favour of the workmen and against the petitioner/Management.3. The reference of the dispute for adjudication, as made before the Industrial Tribunal, was in the following terms:Whether there establishes relationship of Employer and Employees between Bokaro Steel Plant and Sri R.H. Giri and 58 other labours mentioned in Schedule? If so, whether to prevent them from operational work of coke-oven battery which they were doing from 1.10.1992 is proper? If not, what relief they are entitled to?4. The admitted facts of this case are as follows:The concerned workmen were engaged by a private contractor, namely, M/s. T.T.G. for executing certain contract jobs within the plant of the petitioner-Ma...
Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 6.7.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No. 321 of 1986 wherein petitioners have been declared absconder and also the order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No. II), Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 252A of 1996 whereby the trial court by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while directing the record to be deposited in the record room passed an order for issuance of permanent warrant against the petitioners.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the first information report was lodged on 1.3.1986 alleging therein that accused persons in an attempt to kill him fired shot causing injury. The said case was registered as Haidar Nagar P.S. case No. 6 of 1986 under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and also under S...
Arjun Prasad Singh Vs. Dhananjay Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Munsif-II, Dhanbad dated 28th March, 2009 in Title Suit No. 111 of 2000 whereby, certain documents have been given exhibit numbers, despite the petitioner (Original defendant) has raised several objections against this order for granting exhibit numbers to the documents in Title Suit No. 111 of 2000. The present petition has been preferred by the original defendant.2. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons:(i) Respondent No. 1 is original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 111 of 2000 before the Court of learned Munsif-II, Dhanbad.(ii) It appears that several documents have been presented by the original plaintiff and that have been referred in Examination-in-Chief affidavi...
Dhanusdhari Ram @ Dhanusdhari Mahto and Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, dated 8th November, 2008 in Mutation Revision No. 1 of 2008, whereby, an order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 12th December, 2007 in Mutation Appeal No. 26 of 2006 has been quashed and set aside and the order, passed by the Circle Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh, 11th July, 2006 in Mutation Case No. 736 of 2006-07 has been confirmed. Thus, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition, basically against both the orders of Circle Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh, as well as Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.2. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land, in question, is Khata No. 1, Plot No. 9, ad-measuring 0.49 Acres, situated at VillageJalima, P.S. Katkamsandi, District, Hazaribagh. Petitioners' father as well as the father of respondent Nos. ...
Jitendra Bahadur Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the order passed at Annexure-1, which is impugned order, whereby, the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, has passed an order attaching stigma upon the services of the petitioner, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and thereby he has been blacklisted for doing any examination work for three years.2. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as no information was given to the petitioner by the respondents, he had no option, but, to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005, yet no information was given and, therefore, the fact remains that without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard, the impugned order has been passed.3. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is serving in the Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav Inter College, Jhumri Tela...
Brindaban Munda @ Sarjava Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant from the jail against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th of July 2004 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella -Kharsawan in S.T. No. 195 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the trial Court convicted the appellant for committing offence under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.2.2000, the informant P.W.1 Panchu Munda had gone to the nearby river for taking bath. At about 9.15 a.m. his cousin sister, P.W.3, Parvati Kumari came to the river and informed him that his mother, Gurubari Mundain had been assaulted by lathi by the appellant and her dead body was lying in the courtyard of the house. On this information the informant rushed to his house and then found his mother lyi...
Ajit Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order of his dismissal from service, has been repeatedly filing writ applications before this Court and the present writ application appears to be third one in sequence. Each time directions are given to the concerned authorities of the respondents to reconsider and pass appropriate order, the orders passed by the concerned authorities do continue to leave the petitioner still aggrieved.2. The petitioner's grievance is against the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority who, according to the petitioner, have conveniently omitted to consider the grounds of objection raised by the petitioner and have also ignored the findings of the Inquiry Officer which was in favour of the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner explains that the charge against the petitioner was that he had suppressed his caste and by taking advantage of reservation pertai...
Pendyala Madhav Vs. Chandrika Tripathy
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007 below an application preferred by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the order passed by the Family Court is that the petitioner has to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month during the pendency of the matrimonial suit. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:(i) The petitioner has instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007 for the dissolution of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.(ii) Looking to Annexure-4, it appears that the petitioner's income from business is more than Rs. 80,000/-.(iii) It is ...
Most. Rajani Hembrom Vs. Mery Murmu
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
Pradeep Kumar, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.8.2005 passed by Sri Ananat Vijay Singh, District Judge, Dumka in Succession Certificate Case No. 02 of 2001/Title Suit No. 01 of 2002.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial court while passing the judgment, has failed to consider all the evidences adduced by the parties and without considering their cases and documents he has passed the impugned judgment, which is bad in law and only fit to be set aside.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the documents and witnesses produced by the respondent, Mery Murmu beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of the document of the petitioner-appellant, Most. Rajani Hembram a case of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, which was registered as Cr. Misc. Case No. 43/1976 in which there was a clear finding that she is not the wife...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »