Jharkhand Ranchi Court March 2011 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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and ors. Dr. Thakur Surendra Kumar Singh an ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and Award dated 17th December 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 35 of 2003. The appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Challenging the Award to a tune of Rs. 16,48,887/-, which was liable to be paid by the insurer-appellant to the opposite party, who has suffered a permanent disability.2. The facts of the case are that the claimant Dr. Thakur Surendra Kumar Singh was traveling in his Maruti car bearing registration No. BR-26A-0949 from Latehar to Ranchi. When he reached near village Hutap River Bridge on NH-75, then all of a sudden a truck bearing registration No. JH-03A-1124, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver came from the opposite side and violently dashed with his Maruti car, as a result the doctor/ claimant sustained grievous multiple injuries on his person and the car was also badly damaged. Dr. Thakur Surendra ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office and anr. Vs. Dr. Thakur Sur ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and Award dated 17 th December 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 35 of 2003. The appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Challenging the Award to a tune of Rs. 16,48,887/-, which was liable to be paid by the insurer-appellant to the opposite party, who has suffered a permanent disability.2. The facts of the case are that the claimant Dr. Thakur Surendra Kumar Singh was traveling in his Maruti car bearing registration No. BR-26A-0949 from Latehar to Ranchi. When he reached near village Hutap River Bridge on NH-75, then all of a sudden a truck bearing registration No. JH-03A-1124, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver came from the opposite side and violently dashed with his Maruti car, as a result the doctor/ claimant sustained grievous multiple injuries on his person and the car was also badly damaged. Dr. Thakur Surendra...
Pravaskumarsinghandother. Vs. thestateofjharkh and ors
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition has challenged the appointment of Fast Track Judges in the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an advertisement was issued by the High Court of Jharkhand on 23rd May, 2001 whereby the posts of Additional District Judges were advertised. This advertisement was pursuant to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2001). According to the learned counsel, the advertisement was meant exclusively for appointment in terms of the Rules of 2001 and no posts outside these Rules could have been made the subject matter of ppointment.The appointment of the Fast Track Judges (Respondents) as direct recruits to the Fast Track Court have been made from the selection which was pursuant to this advertisement. Since this advertisement was meant only for the regular ...
Pravas Kumar Singh and ors. Vs
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition has challenged the appointment of Fast Track Judges in the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an advertisement was issued by the High Court of Jharkhand on 23rd May, 2001 whereby the posts of Additional District Judges were advertised. This advertisement was pursuant to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2001). According to the learned counsel, the advertisement was meant exclusively for appointment in terms of the Rules of 2001 and no posts outside these Rules could have been made the subject matter of appointment.The appointments of the Fast Track Judges (Respondents) as direct recruits to the Fast Track Court have been made from the selection which was pursuant to this advertisement. Since this advertisement was meant only for the regula...
Prabhunath Tiwari and ors. Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority a ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
1. A suit being Title Suit No. 266/2006 was instituted by the petitioners interalia against defendantrespondent no. 4 Md. Anwar, who appeared in the suit. Thereafter, he filed an application for sanction of map, which was sanctioned on 08/03/2008. The suit land and the land for which the map was sanctioned is the same.2. But in the application for sanction, respondent no. 4 did not mention anything about the pendency of the said suit. The petitioners filed an application, which was registered as U.C Case No. 43 of 2008 invoking section 38 of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act ( the Act for short) on or about 29/08/2008 interlay alleging that the factum of the pendency of the suit was a suppression and thus material misrepresentation on the part of respondent no. 4 and, therefore, the action under section 38 of the Act be taken against him. On 21/11/2008, a time petition was filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, which was allowed but in the meantime, it was ordered that no cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›