Jharkhand Court January 2001 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.
Madan Kumar Sharma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1234
D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the sole petitioner in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to investigate into the circumstances under which his father, namely, Late Jay Prakash Sharma was arrested in connection with Jorapokhar F.S. Case No. 204 of 1995, even without being implicated and is awarding suitable compensation at least 5 lacks and a job to one of the petitioneras the father of the petitioner had died due to negligence of the respondents. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application is that the Lakhpati Devi lodged on FIR, before the Jorapokhar P.S. being Jorapokhar (Sadar Dhanbad) P.S. Case No. 204 of 1995 in which it was alleged that her husband was working in Tisco Jamadoba and has retired in August, 1993. He had received 2,25,000/-only as retiral benefit which he had deposited in the State Bank of India. The informant had brought few bricks from one Nasim Ansari for repairin...
Pawan Enterprises Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1008
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bajla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the Board.2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, dated 19.10.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur, whereby, he has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in CWJC No. 880/ 2000(R).3. The petitioner's case is that, in 1991, the petitioner took LTI connection for a load of 25 HP which was subsequently enhanced to 50 HP and electricity was being supplied through the transformer of 63 KVA. In 1995, the petitioner desired to expand the activities and applied for further expansion of loadof 20 HP making the total of 70 HP. The enhanced load was sanctioned by the respondent-Board, vide letter, dated 9.10.1995 on the condition that the power can be supplied only in case of high tension and/or low ...
Murliwala Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1241
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. MB. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board.2. A short question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondent-Board was justified in raising bill on the basis of minimum guarantee for the period when meter was either found burnt or defective or ceased to function.3. Petitioner was having H.T. connection in its factory premises having load of 135 K.V.A. Upto August, 1998 the bill was raised on the basis of actual energy consumption recorded in the meter installed in the factory premises of the petitioner and the petitioner duly paid all the bills raised by the Board. The meter became defective which was confirmed by the officials of the Board after inspection made on 16.9.1998. The respondent-Board further raised bill for the month of September, 1998 but instead of raising bill on the basis of average consumption the Board raised the bill on the b...
Bilautia Devi and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR983; 2001CriLJ1649
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Cr PC by the petitioners praying there in for quashing the order dated 5.8.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 500 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 406/418 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts as alleged in the complaint petition is that the petitioner No. 1 Bilautia Devi is, step mother of complainant and petitioner No. 2 Rambriksh Sao is her brother, whereas Laxman Sao is husband of Bilautia Devi was the owner of the premises who had two daughters by his first wife whereas petitioner No. 1 was his second wife and she had no issue. After the death of Laxman Sao the dispute was settled by deed of settlement dated 7.12.1972 but accused Nos. 1 to 3 started creating trouble for which a Title Suit No. 99 of 1992 was filed. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 2 dishonestly sold a p...
Hari Charan Hemrom Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR249]
ORDERS.N. Mishra, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that though he has worked till 7.12.2000 i.e.beyond the period of superannuation to theknowledge of the authority, yet the salarydrawn between 31.1.2000 to 7.12.2000 issought to be realised from the petitioner onthe ground that he has worked beyond theperiod of superannuation i.e. 31.1.2000. Admittedly the petitioner has worked till7.12.2000 and, accordingly, the salary forthe period has been paid to him. In that viewof the matter, the respondent can not ask forthe refund of the amount which has beendrawn by way of salary till 7.12.2000. Accordingly, the order dated 7.12.2000, ascontained in Annexure-1, to this writ application is hereby quashed. However, it ismade clear that the period during which thepetitioner worked beyond the date of superannuation will not be taken into consideration for grant of pensionary benefits.This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. 2. Appeals disposed of....
Madhusudan Paul Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR759; 2001CriLJ2688
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J. 1. In this application the Office raised objection about the maintainability of this case and, as such, heard learned counsel for both sides and it is being disposed of.2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 20.7.1999 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 255 of 1997, whereby and where under, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.3. The facts giving rise to this application are quite simple which may be shortly stated.4. The petitioner/accused persons filed a petition under Section 228(1) of the Code praying therein that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner/ accused persons. The complainant/op-pusite-party No. 2 also filed rejoinder staling therein that it is a fit case in which charge under Section 307 of the India...
Umesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1255; [2001(89)FLR367]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.3.95 and 8.10.98 as contained in Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application, whereby the salary of the petitioner was stopped and was discharged/removed from the service.2. Petitioner's case inter alia is that he was appointed as Clerk in the vacant post lying in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, in terms of the appointment letter issued by Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Subsequently, services of the petitioner was said to have been confirmed and confirmation letter to that effect was issued on 8.4.1994 and petitioner was said to have received salary for one year and thereafter all of a sudden salary of the petitioner was stopped by the competent authority. Petitioner then filed representation for payment of salary, which was stopped since 1994 and ultimately filed writ petition being CWJC No. 1066 of 1996 (R). The...
Bihar State Electric Supply Workers' Union S.M. through Its members Vs ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1002
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners on the post of Junior Engineers considering the fact that the petitioners while in service in the lower grade have obtained Diploma in Engineering and thereby became entitled for absorption under Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineers (General) Cadre Rules.2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass.3. The petitioners were initially appointed in Class III post and during service they obtained Diploma in Engineering in the year 1996 after taking due permission from the authorities. The petitioners' case is that the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board had adopted a special procedure whereby it allowed its Class HI employees like technician, switch board operator, line- man, etc. to take permission to the Department for the purpose of higher education of Diploma in Electrical Engineering and upon passing th...
Krishna Associates Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1237
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant application, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitrator and for reference of the claim to the Arbitrator for adjudication.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner was allotted work order for construction of whart/ earth filling at Churi Railway siding under Piperwar Project in terms of the agreement, dated 30.7.1994. This work was valued at Rs. 31,57,162.46 paise. The side work was to be commenced from 26.4.1994 and to be completed within a period of six months.Petitioner's case is that there was inordinate delay from the side of the respondents in allotment of clear site where the job was to be carried out. The respondents could not provide entire . working place except a part where the petitioner began its work. In this respect, for providing other site, the petitioner sent several letters but nothing was done by the respondents. It appear...
Maa Chhinnamastika Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1225; 2001CriLJ1548
S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J.1. In all the cases, as common point of law involved, and common orders, dated 23rd July, 2000 and 26th July, 2000 are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The brief fact of the cases, as admitted, shows that the petitioners are manufacturer of special smokeless fuel and bye-products for which they use coal as its raw material. They are registered with District Industries Centre, Hazari-bagh as small scale industries and have been granted linkage for supply of certain quantity of coal, per month by Coal India Limited (CIL) on the recommendation of Linkage Committee.3. The petitioners were supplied coal by Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) till July 2000. Since August 2000, supply of coal in favour of petitioners having suspended by impugned wireless message dated lst/2nd August, 2000, they have challenged the same.4. It appears that certain raid was conducted by S.P., Hazaribagh in June 2000, whereinafter, FIRs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »