Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR616; [2009(1)JCR444(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1999 passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Seraikella in Money Suit No. 03 of 1997 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,75,321=48 has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.2. The plaintiff-Bank of India having its Adityapur branch, filed the aforementioned suit against the respondents for recovery of the loan amount together with interest taken by them. The plaintiff-appellants case inter alia was that defendant- respondent No. 2 as proprietor of defendant-respondent No. 1 M/s. Aswi Electricals, approached the plaintiff-bank for financial assistance by way of loan and cash credit facility. On the request of the respondents, the plaintiff-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- and a cash credit facility to a limit of Rs. 60000/-. Respondent No. 2 for self and as proprietor of defendant No. 1 executed number of documents on 08.10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(1)JCR547(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners. 2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed a suit for declaration of title and during the pendency of the suit, they filed an amendment petition seeking further relief for recovery of possession on the allegation that during the pendency of the suit they were dispossessed. The said amendment petition was allowed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order only on the ground that the plaintiff's were neverdispossessed during the pendency of the suit, rather it is the defendants-petitioners who were in continuous possession for the last 40 years and, therefore, the amendment could not have been allowed.3. The question whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or the defendants have been corning in possession of the property for the last 40 years, is the question which can be decided in the suit and it has got no concern with the relief of amendment sought for. Merely becaus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(2)BLJR1467; [2003(3)JCR302(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand issued an order No. 52 dated 23rd November, 2001 under Sections 41 and 42 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 declaring the Ranchi dairy, Ranchi, Bokaro dairy, Bokaro, Jamshedpur dairy, Jamshedpur and Cattle Feed Factory, Ranchi of Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as COMFED) as immovable and movable properties of the State of Jharkhand. The Chief Executive Officer/ Manager of the dairies and Cattle Feed Factory, Ranchi were directed to function under the control of Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand with immediate effect.2. The Managing Director, COMFED by letter No. 7035 dated 26/27th November, 2001 informed the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand that the provision of Sections 41 and 42 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 relates to divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(3)JCR73(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is seen to be one challenging an order on an application for amendment of the written statement passed by the Trial Court. Dr. Laik rightly raised the objection that the revision is not entertainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the amendment brought to that provision with effect from 1.7.2002.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that this Court has undoubtedly jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to scrutinize the proceedings of the Trial Court and the matter can be considered in exercise of that jurisdiction.4. Although Dr. Laik objected to the exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to accept that objection. After all, the jurisdiction of this Court is to keep the Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR362; [2008(4)JCR375(Jhr)]
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.9.2001 and 3.10.2001 respectively, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2000, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the said offence.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is set out as under:On 09.09.1999 the victim Premlata Tudu along with her sister Pusplata Marandi were returning from Chandna Hatiya at around 5.00 p.m. in a jeep. They came down from the jeep at about 6.00 p.m. at Bathantarn where they met the accused-appellant Sonalal Hansda. The Informant and her sister Pusplata Marandi were having vegetables in a bag and the accused-appellant proposed to carry the vegetables in his bicycle and, accordingly, they gave the bag to the accused-appellant to be carried in the bicycle.Furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2005(1)BLJR542; [2005(1)JCR395(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal Nos. 8 to 45 of 1997(R). By the said judgment all the aforementioned appeals filed by the appellant Union of India through Central Coalfields Ltd. has been allowed in part.2. The sole question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 was justified in awarding interest and solatium in absence of any such provision in the said Act of 1957 :3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.A Notification dated 9.1.1978 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (in short the Act, of 1957) for acquisition of Coal Bearing lands in village Govindpur and Armo within the Nawadah Police Station in the district of Giridih. Thereafter, on 17.8.1979 and 1.9.1979 notification under Section 7(1) of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2009Jhar84; 2009(57)BLJR680; [2009(1)JCR318(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Challenge in this application is to the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the learned Munsif, Ranchi in an Execution Proceeding vide Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 21 Order 97(i)(ii) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted and a direction was issued to the parties to adduce evidence for deciding upon the claim of right, title and interest of the respondent No. 2 over the suit premises.2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent No. 2 from the suit premises under the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff by order dated 5.8.2006.3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Court below under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC for execution of the decree. The application was registere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR49; [2008(4)JCR12(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application, the petitioner- M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has prayed for quashing the order and award dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dumka in Pre-Litigation Case No. 02 of 2005 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat (in short referred to as 'Lok Adalat') allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:Respondent No. 2 who is an employee of Civil Court, Dumka filed a Complaint Petition under Section 22(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dumka for compensation of Rs. 10000/- and a cost of Rs. 2000/- on the allegation that his Telephone No. 224605 was not functioning from 08.5.2005 to 02.6.2005. The said Complaint Petition was registered as Pre-Litigation Case No. 02 of 2005. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed show cause stating inter alia tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR13(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.2002 passed by 3rd Sub Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in money suit No. 2/2002 by which he has allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and issued temporary injunction in mandatory form directing the appellant to allow them to lift the ash contents/remains of the briquettes which is lying in the premises of the appellant. 2. This case has a checked history. In the year 1982 a contract was entered into by and between the appellant and the respondents whereby a work order was issued in favour of the respondent for dispatch of slurry after converting into briquettes within the premises of the appellant on certain terms and conditions including payment of royalty, cess, sales tax, excise duty etc. A dispute arose with regard to payment of cess and royalty and a writ petition was filed by the respondent being CWJC No. 1232/98(R). The writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR780; [2003(1)JCR497(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 1988 passed by Sub-Judge, Ist Court, Seraikella in Money Suit No. 33/60 of 1984 whereby he has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforementioned suit against the respondent-Railway Administration for realization of Rs. 51,612.43 paise being the loss and damages for short delivery of the consignment. Plaintiffs case is that on 15.7.1981 M/s. Ferro Alloy Corporation Ltd. booked the consignment under railway receipt No. 448609, invoice No. 3 from Garibidi railway station for its safe delivery to the plaintiff at Gamhariya railway station in South Eastern Railway. The consignment was booked under railway risk. The total valueof the consignment was Rs. 2,46,730.27 paise. The railway wagon was found in a broken condition in the destination station and consequently open delivery was taken on 17,8.1981. It is alleged that out of 361 bags 26 bags were found and...
Tag this Judgment!