Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an application for amendment in the plaint was preferred by the petitioner, who is the original plaintiff and partly the said application was allowed and partly it was rejected. Paragraphs vi to x of the amendment application was not allowed to be amended and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. Paragraphs vi to x of the amendment application are as under: "vi) After paragraph 15, a sub para "15A" be added as follows: That so far as the lands of Khata No. 48 are concern, the father of the defendant has received Compensation amount also awarded in L.R. Case No. 26/83 for acquisition of the land (for BazarSamittee) measuring 1.93 Acres (Khata No. 48) consisting of plot no. 2143, Area 1.75 Acres and plot no. 2145 Acres 0.18 Acre. Hence the lands measuring 1.93 acres should be deducted from the share of the defendants.2. In addition to the above lands, the lands measuring 0.50 acre under Khata No. 48 has been so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.06.2005 passed in Revenue Misc. Petition No. 62 of 1993/94, by the Commissioner, Dumka (Annexure 6); the order dated 11.8.2010 passed in R.M.A. Case No. 144 of 1988-89 by respondent no. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (Annexure 7) affirming the order dated 06.09.1988 (Annexure 4) passed by the respondent no. 4 Sub- Divisional Officer, Dumka directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment.2. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act ('B.P.L.E. Act' for short) was started against the father of the petitioner being Encroachment Case No. 1 of 1954-55 which was dropped on 17.07.1955 as no encroachment was found. Thereafter one Ainul Haque and another filed suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, claiming the land in question, along with other lands, which was decreed on compromise. On the basis of a pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Rajmahal, Sahibgang by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed in S.C. No. 91 of 2007 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 199 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 426 of 2006 and the summons was directed to be issued against the petitioners to be added for the charge under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner No.1 Kailash Mandal is the father- in-law whereas the petitioner No.2 Sita Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased.3. The prosecution story in short was that the mother of the deceased presented a written report before the police that her daughter Suman Devi(since deceased) was married to the accused Sanjay Mandal some two years ago in which adequate dowry was given to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case no.38A of 1996 PAT and R.C. Case no.45A of 1996 PAT so far it relates to the petitioner on the ground of aforesaid two cases being hit by Section 300 of the code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that the petitioner who has already been convicted in R.C. no.39A of 1996 PAT on certain charges is being prosecuted for the same charges.2. The facts leading to filing of this case are that in the year 1996, when it was detected that officials and staffs of Animal Husbandry Department in connivance with other accused persons including high-ups in the administration of the State have been withdrawing money through different treasuries of the State of Bihar fraudulently putting State exchequer to a great loss, 64 cases known as Fodder Scam Cases were instituted in different places of the then State of Bihar.3. Out of those cases, three cases, namely, Dumka T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. This Cr. Revision is directed against the judgment dated 20th March, 2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.119 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. VII Hazaribagh by which the judgment of conviction recorded by Sri. Santhosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 572 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 1217 of 2006 against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and order of sentence passed against him was affirmed and his appeal was dismissed.2. By the said judgment petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 35,000/- with the observation that on realization of such amount from the petitioner, a sum of Rs.30,000/- would be given to the complainant- opposite party No.2.3. During pendency of this Cr.Revision an interlocutory application No. 2496 of 2010 was filed on behalf of the petitioner requesting that the Cr.Revision be decided in vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. This application has been filed for grant of bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1 of 2009, corresponding to Enforcement Case Information Report-E.C.I.R./02/PAT/09/AD registered under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( Money Laundering Act for short).2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on 24.05.2010 vide B.A. No. 823 of 2010, inter alia observing as follows;- It appears that a complaint has been filed by the Assistant Director- II of Directorate of Enforcement under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Special Judge Ranchi (under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) against the petitioner Vikash Sinha. It further appears that information was filed under the scheduled offences of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, i.e. under sections 420, 423,424,409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under sections 7,10 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and now for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Today, an Intervention Application has been filed on behalf of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries. It is a happy development that the Captains of industries has chosen to come to Court. It was put to the counsel appearing for the Chamber of Commerce that the Chamber of Commerce, as a protector of the business communities' interest, has also responsibility for safeguarding the interest of the society at large. The grievance raised was that some forceful action is taken against the alleged encroachers in the shape of wrong assessment, which is not rightful. It was put to the counsel for the Chamber of Commerce that if the Chamber of Commerce is prepared to take upon itself that all those who are encroachers will be persuaded to vacate the unlawful encroachment and all those who are in possession of the land other than their rightful title land will be persuaded by the Chamber of Commerce to vacate the same, this Court would be happy to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
Procedure in connection with the offence registered with Ghatsila P.S. Case no. 96 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 360 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been deliberately named in the first information report, he is a villager; nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession; no material has been found against him during investigation; co-accused Khagen Mahto with similar allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4062 of 2009; the petitioner is in custody since August, 2010.3. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail, but has not disputed the other contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Instant Second Appeal is listed for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. The respondents- defendants are represented and the lower Court record is also available. In the circumstance, respective counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents are ready to argue the Second Appeal finally. Thus, the appeal proceeds for final hearing.2. The substantial question of law which arises in the instant Second Appeal was formulated on 20.1.2011. Though learned counsel has framed a number of substantial questions of law , but the appeal is being heard only on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the three transactions are mortgage by way of a conditional sale or a sale with a condition to repurchase?"3. Title Suit No. 16 of 1997 was preferred by Shahid Alam against the defendants-appellants claiming the reliefs for declaration of his title over the suit land detailed in schedule-1 of the plaint and to put the plaintiff in possession over the suit property a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Instant Second Appeal is listed for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. The respondents- defendants are represented and the lower Court record is also available. In the circumstance, respective counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents are ready to argue the Second Appeal finally. Thus, the appeal proceeds for final hearing.2. The substantial question of law which arises in the instant Second Appeal was formulated on 20.1.2011. Though learned counsel has framed a number of substantial questions of law , but the appeal is being heard only on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the three transactions are mortgage by way of a conditional sale or a sale with a condition to repurchase?"3. Title Suit No. 16 of 1997 was preferred by Shahid Alam against the defendants-appellants claiming the reliefs for declaration of his title over the suit land detailed in schedule-1 of the plaint and to put the plaintiff in possession over the suit property a...
Tag this Judgment!