Jharkhand Court January 2001 Judgments
Shikshit Berojgar Pco Sanchalak Sangh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR651
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Prasad, learnedstanding counsel, Central Government.2. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the notice, dated 15.2.1993 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application issued by the Accounts Officer (TRA), Department of Telecommunication, whereby, minimum guarantee amount was revised from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 18,300/- for the year' 1998-99 and Rs. 45,800/- respectively.3. It appears that pursuant to an advertisement, the members of the petitioner-Union applied for public STD/Non-STD Pay Phone booth and after fulfilling the terms and conditions including payment of minimum guarantee, the members of the petitioner-Union were allowed to operate Pay-Phones booth on certain terms and conditions and the provisions contained in the letter of the DOT, New Delhi, dated 14.8.1992. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents unilaterally decided to enhance the minimum guarante...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Nath Ohdar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1258; 2001CriLJ3576
D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7.12.1998 passed by the S.D.J.M., Ranch! in Complaint Case No. 142 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.J.M. discharged the accused-persons/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as stated is that the complainant being the petitioner is the owner of the tank (Bandh) of Plot No. 1141 and has been in possession of the same for more than 30 years. The complainant's father had taken the said tank by Hukumnama from ex-landlord in the year 1946 and accordingly the rent was paid to the ex-landlord prior to the vesting of Jamindari. The complainant used to rear fish in the tank and used to catch fishes without any disturbance. Last year the complainant also reared fishes about 2 kelo in the said tank. The accused persons, after forming unlawful assembly came to the said tank with deadly weapons and fished out about 10 mongs of fishes worth Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant also protested...
Tag this Judgment!Shakilur Rahman and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1593
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This criminal revision has arisen out of an order dated 15.4.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Revision No. 58 of 1995 by which he has set aside the order dated 1.9.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in G.R. No. 660 of 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate had refused to amend the charges already framed against the petitioners.2. Short case of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR is that the daughter of the informant Sahnaz Begaum was married in the year 1985 with Shakilur Rahman Khan. After sometime, she was being ill-treated by her in-laws. Inspite of the fact that the informant had given sufficient dowry being clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 50,000/-. The husband of his daughter was demanding one Rajdoot Motor Cycle, which could not be given. On 22.4.1988 at about 7 p.m. the husband of his daughter took heraway from his place. Inspite of the fact that he did not want to send her and the husband was also threatening for divo...
Tag this Judgment!Most. Suga Bibi and ors., Vs. Nirmal Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1275
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties. In a motor accident dated 18.2.1995 Asgar Ali, Riyazuddin Ansari and Kur-ban Ali lost their lives. Their dependents preferred three, different claim cases, being 69, 70 and 71 of 1995 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), which were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 19.9.1998. However, three awards were prepared, and therefore, the present three appeals have been preferred, under Section 173 of the said Act. These three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order..2. Admittedly the aforesaid three deceased-persons were passengers on a Maxi-Taxi (BR-20P 1045), which turned down, as a result of which, the aforesaid passengers were severally injured and ultimately died. In respect of the said accident, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 35 of 1995 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It was established in the claim cases, in...
Tag this Judgment!Chacha Nehru Vidyapith Vs. Authority Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1066; [2001(89)FLR1060]; (2001)ILLJ1439Jhar
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks declaration that employment in the petitioner-school, namely, Chacha Nehru Vidyapith, is not schedule-employment and it is not covered by any employment specified in a schedule of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and further for quashing the orders passed by respondents whereby it is held that the petitioner school is liable to pay Minimum Wages to its employees mentioned therein. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. 3. Petitioner is a school imparting education upto Class VI standard. The employees of the petitioner school are teachers as well as clerk and ad-ministerial staff. In 1994, respondent No. 3, Labour Superintendent-cum-Inspector under Minimum Wages Act, filed an application against the Secretary of the School for and on behalf of the teachers and non-teaching employees of the school for awarding compensation equal to the wages alleged to have been paid less than the minimum wages. Petitioner resisted th...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhar Bhusan Nag Vs. Nirmal Kumar Singhania and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR649
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Reference may be made to the order, dated 24.1.2000, which reads as under:'No sooner, the State of Jharkhand has come into existence the officers of the State have started disregarding, disobeying and disrespecting the orders passed by this Court. This case is one of the best example, where the Additional Advocate General, whose voice is the voice of the State has been totally disregarded. The Supreme Court in one decision has settled the law that although the statement made by the Government counsels are not always binding on the state but the statement made by or the undertaking given by the Advocate General and the Additional Advocate General are binding on the State. In this writ application the only grievance of the petitioner was that the officers of the Transport Department mainly, the Joint Transport Commissioner is not returning back the forms submitted by the petitioner after putting his counter-signature. The writ application was filed on27.11.2000, but...
Tag this Judgment!Sugiya Oraon Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR671
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 1.7.2000 issued by respondent No. 3, the colliery Manager, Kedla Area of CCL, whereby the petitioner was declared fit to resume alternative job and further for a direction to the respondents to give the petitioner the benefits of 9-4-0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement (shortly NCWA) by giving employment to his son.2. The petitioner was working on the post of Time Rated Employee and was posted at Kedla underground project, Hazaribagh area. In curse of employment he met with an accident on 7-10-1998 in the underground mine and sustained serious injury in his right leg. The petitioner was hospitalised in CCL hospital for more than a year and remained under the treatment of the Area hospital of CCL. The petitioner was continuously allowed medical leave as he was not in a position to perform his duty. The petitioner, therefore, applied for employment of his son on 1-1-2000 under para 9-4-...
Tag this Judgment!Amna Khatoon Vs. Md. Kashim Ansari
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1228
A.K. Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is by the plaintiff (Amna Khatoon) against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 40 of 1994, dismissing her suit for dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 ('the Act', for short). 2. The essential facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : It is admitted fact that the plaintiff (Amna Khatoon) and the defendant (Md. Kashim Ansari) Were married on 6.3.1993, according to the Mahomedan rites at village Asanbani, P.S. Govindpur, within district Dhanbad, at the residence of the plaintiff. The defendant is the resident of village Sam-hari, P.S. Barwadda, within district Dhanbad. It emerges from the record that the parents of the plaintiff are blind and she has two married sisters and no brother. Further, both the parties have admitted in their evidence that nochild has been born to them out of the wed-l...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Dey Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR999
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act making a prayer for appointment of independent arbitrator for reference of dispute for adjudication. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was awarded a contract by the Zila Parishad, Singhbhum West being agreement No. F2-15 of 1985-86 for construction of canteen, press and shops at Zila Parishad Campus. As per the agreement the date of the commencement of the work was 19.8.1985 and the date of completion was 19.8.1986. The petitioner said to have completed the work by 15.4.1987 and handed over the same to the respondents. It is stated that in course of execution of work payments were made to the petitioner through accounts bill from time to time after the work done by the petitioner was measured by Engineer Incharge and Measurements were entered in M.B. No. 452 and 526. It is stated that till completion of the work under the agreement, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 14,1...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Babu Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR998
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel, for the respondents.2. This is an application under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein a prayerhas been made for appointment of an independent arbitrator for reference of dispute for adjudication.3. The petitioner's case, inter alia, isthat he was awarded a contract work bythe Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Ranchiand an agreement was entered into between the parties being Agreement No.24F2 of 1989-90 and contract was forwidening and strengthening of K.T.K.Road. The petitioner completed themajor portion of the work but due toshortage of bitumen and road roller,which was to be supplied by the RoadConstruction Department, he could notfinish his work. The Department failed tosupply materials and other requirementsin spite of reminders and ultimately thepetitioner was forced to stop the work.The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »