Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Bihar State Industrial Develop Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Bihar State Industrial Develop vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 18, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972621

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bihar State Industrial Develop

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Excerpt

.....hon'blemrs.justicejayaroy forthepetitioner :mr.himahshukumarmehta,advocate ms.manjusripatra,advocate mr.p.mishra,advocate fortherespondents :mr.ajitkumar,a.a.g. mr.s.p.roy,advocate th orderno.22 dated,18 june,2013 heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. we are impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not taken serious steps for disposing of their property because they took abouttwomonthstimeinreinvitingofferfromthewillingperson whowillfacilitatethesaleofthepropertyoftherespondents.we need not to narrate the facts again and again as respondents themselveshavefullyunderstoodtheplightofthepoorpeoplewho arewaitingfortheirwagessincedecades.therefore,itisdirected thattherespondentsmaytakedecisionabouttheoffergivenbythe fresh bidder by or before 1st july, 2013 and intimate this court aboutthedecisionandifthedecisionistakenpriorto1stjuly,2013 for appointing authorised agency for sale of the property, then without waiting for first july, the respondents may take further stepsalsofortheprocessofsaleoftheproperty.thestatusreport besubmittedon1stjuly,2013. we are making it clear that the payment to the workmenisnotsolelydependuponthesaleoftheproperty,weare directing the respondents to state on oath availability of funds which may be lying here and there in the banks and any other places from where the amount can be withdrawn by the respondents. such amount may also be withdrawn and proportionatelypaidtotheworkmanbytherespondents. putupthiscaseon2ndjuly,2013inthesupplementary causelist. copy of the order be given to the counsel for the petitionerandcounselfortherespondent bsidc. (prakashtatia,c.j.) (jayaroy,j.) si/anit

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(PIL)No.6507of2010 BiharStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporationLtd. KaramchariMahasangh,Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Others ... ... ...Respondents With W.P.(C)No.2597of2012 BiharStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporationLtd.,Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Others ... ... ...Respondents With W.P.(C)No.2619of2012 BiharStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporationLtd.,Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Others ... ... ... Respondents CORAM :HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.HimahshuKumarMehta,Advocate Ms.ManjusriPatra,Advocate Mr.P.Mishra,Advocate FortheRespondents :Mr.AjitKumar,A.A.G. Mr.S.P.Roy,Advocate th OrderNo.22 Dated,18 June,2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. We are impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not taken serious steps for disposing of their property because they took abouttwomonthstimeinreinvitingofferfromthewillingperson whowillfacilitatethesaleofthepropertyoftherespondents.We need not to narrate the facts again and again as respondents themselveshavefullyunderstoodtheplightofthepoorpeoplewho arewaitingfortheirwagessincedecades.Therefore,itisdirected thattherespondentsmaytakedecisionabouttheoffergivenbythe fresh bidder by or before 1st July, 2013 and intimate this Court aboutthedecisionandifthedecisionistakenpriorto1stJuly,2013 for appointing authorised agency for sale of the property, then without waiting for first July, the respondents may take further stepsalsofortheprocessofsaleoftheproperty.Thestatusreport besubmittedon1stJuly,2013. We are making it clear that the payment to the workmenisnotsolelydependuponthesaleoftheproperty,weare directing the respondents to state on oath availability of funds which may be lying here and there in the banks and any other places from where the amount can be withdrawn by the respondents. Such amount may also be withdrawn and proportionatelypaidtotheworkmanbytherespondents. Putupthiscaseon2ndJuly,2013inthesupplementary causelist. Copy of the order be given to the counsel for the petitionerandcounselfortherespondent BSIDC. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) (JayaRoy,J.) SI/Anit

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Bihar State Industrial Develop vs State of Jharkhand and ors. Same Subject Education
Education

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales