Jharkhand Court June 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.
Shri Hardeep Singh Bedi and Smt. Radha Rani @ Radha Rani Bedi Vs. the ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. It appears from the office report that though notices were validly served upon the Opposite Party No. 2 and she had earlier appeared through lawyer by filing Vakalatnama and had also filed a rejoinder to the petitioners' present application, but on call counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has not appeared though counsel for the State is present.2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State.3. The petitioners in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 03.08.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bokaro and the criminal proceeding presently pending against the petitioners following the order of cognizance vide C.P. Case No. 184 of 2005.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order of cognizance and the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners primarily on the ground that the impugned order is bad in view of the fact that the learned court below has passed ...
Beni Madho Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Despite valid service of notice upon the Opposite Party No. 2, he has failed to appear either in person or through lawyer. The counsel for the State however is present.2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State.3. The petitioners, who are the forest officials have filed the instant application praying for quashing the order of cognizance as also the entire criminal prosecution which has been initiated against them following the impugned order of cognizance, for the offence under Sections 384, 420, 424, 426, 427, 120-B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint petition before the court below on 02.07.2005 against the present petitioners on the allegations that the accused persons, being the forest officials, had illegally restrained the Tractor belonging to the complainant and the witnesses while the Khair wood obtained from the trees which were standing within the pe...
Prabhu Dayal Rai Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for a direction to be issued to the court below to accept the compromise petition filed by the parties in the pending litigation vide complaint case No. 27/94 and to pass appropriate orders under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.3. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner before the court below in which cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared in the proceeding and had initially offered his contest.4. After having faced trial in the case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. Against the Judgment of conviction and sente...
Andu Larwey and Guru Dayal Larwey Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing the order dated 22.01.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.A. No. 24/1984-85 whereby the order dated 28.03.1983 (annexure-2) passed by the Settlement officer, Dumka in R.E. Case No. 24/1982-83 has been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to be evicted from the lands as well as his house.3. The challenge to the impugned order of the Commissioner has been made on the ground that the same has been passed without application of judicial mind and is against the ratio decided in the Full Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Bhauri Lal Jain and Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara and Ors. : AIR 1973 Patna 1 and in the another Judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Shaikh Bande v. Jethua Pahan and Ors. : AIR 1975 Patna 113.4. The petitioners' case in brief is as follows:The lands compri...
Sri Gandauri Rabidas and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners, who happen to be the employees of the Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 2) and who are working on daily wages since the past 20 years continuously have, in this writ application, prayed for the following reliefs:(i) For quashing the order dated-24.01.2005 (Annexure-4), whereby the order of regularisation of the services of the petitioners with effect from 28.02.04 (Annexure-3), issued by the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 4), has been cancelled by his successor in office.(ii) For quashing the order dated-10.02.2005 (Annexure-5), whereby the Respondent No. 4 has ordered for recovery of salaries and wages to be paid to the petitioners after their regularization.(iii) To direct the Respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears of salaries and other admissible benefits together with interest @ 18 per cent per annum from 31.01.2...
Ramesh Kant Mishra Vs. the Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through I ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him his entire retrial dues including Regular Pension, Gratuity and commutation of pension to the extent of 40 per cent and the payable amount and also to pay interest on the delayed payment of pension.3. The petitioner had retired from the post of Accounts Assistant in the services of the Electrical Supply Division, Daltonganj which is an unit of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi on 31.07.2005.Upon the payment of the retrial dues being not made promptly, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 6067 of 2005. The writ application was disposed of by this Court by order dated-01.12.2005, with a direction to the Respondents to ensure payments of the petitioner's retrial benefits along with its calculations and to assign reasons for not paying the other amounts within the period stip...
Kapildeo Mondal Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to fix and pay the pensionary benefit of the petitioner on the basis of the pay scale of Rs. 8,000/- which was the last pay drawn by him during his service and not to make any recovery from the pensionary/terminal benefits of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 2,93,591/-.3. The main questions which have been raised by the petitioner are:(i) Whether any recovery can be made from the pensionary/terminal benefits of the petitioner after his retirement without there being any finding of any misconduct in the departmental proceeding or criminal case against him.(ii) Whether the pension of the retired employee has to be fixed on the basis of the scale to which the petitioner was entitled to or on the basis of the last pay drawn by him ?4. Both the above issues have, by now, bee...
Ramdeo Mandal Vs. Sidhu Kanhu University Through the Vice-chancellors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. Mr. C.S. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has passed B.Sc. Part II and III examination, but his result of BSc. Part I examination has been withheld. It is further submitted that in the mark-sheet, it was noted that petitioner failed only in Chemistry and therefore he cleared the Chemistry paper but now on the ground that he failed in Botany Practical, the mark-sheet/certificate of passing B.Sc Final is withheld.3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, appearing for the University, pointed out from the said mark-sheet that in the Botany Practical also, petitioner failed as he secured only 7 marks out of 10 but by mistake, it was not noted in the mark-sheet.4. On this, Mr. Prasad submitted that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner for clearing the practical Botany Examination.5. It cannot be believed that the petitioner, being a graduate student, did not unde...
Kapura Mandal @ Kapural Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The petitioner's case is that her father-in-law late Jamini Kant Mandal was an employee of the Central Government and he, after his retirement, applied for license under Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 for running a business of Saw Mill, which was granted to him in the year 1994. Her father-in-law was running the Saw Mill and after his death the said license was transferred and a fresh license was issued in the name of the petitioner, who was carrying out Saw Mill business in the name of M/S Kalyan Timber Traders at Baliapur in the District of Dhanbad under License No. DH/ 29/2003.Further, according to her, while her application for renewal of her Saw Mill license was pending, she received a notice dated 11/01/2006 issued by the D.F.O. cum Licensing Authority to show cause as to why her Saw Mill license be not cancelled in view of the provisions of Sectio...
M.P. Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have filed the present application for quashing the order dated 15.07.2005 whereby, the learned court below had rejected the petitioners' prayer for their exemption from personal appearance in the case, vide C-III Case No. 342 of 1982 under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.3. The case against the petitioners was registered on the basis of complaint filed by the Provident Fund Inspector alleging that in spite of several notices, the petitioners had failed to deposit the Linked Insurance Contributions of their employees for the month of November, 1980 to January, 1981. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance for the offence under Section 14 of the Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, was taken against the petitioners by the court below.4. Assai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »