Jharkhand Court October 2001 Judgments
Management of Basf India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1019]
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of both the L.P.As. together.2. Vide judgment dated 16th March, 2001, passed in Civil Appeal No. 2100 of 2001 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11892 of 2000, their Lordships of the Supreme Court by setting aside the Division Bench judgments of Patna High Court in two Writ Petitions being CWJC No. 3253 of 1999(R) and CWJC No. 3254 of 1999(R) remitted to the Division Bench of this Court the aforesaid two Appeals for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Both the Writ applications related to two References made by the State Government under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short). The appellant-Management of BASF India Ltd. had challenged the legality, validity and correctness of these two References in the aforesaid two writ applications which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of Patna High Court. Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent having been filed by the appellant also meeting t...
Tag this Judgment!Morha Pahan and ors. Vs. Gajra Munda and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1189
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Plaintiffs are appellants.2. Admittedly, Odrey Pahan was recorded tenant of 15.76 acres land, appertaining to Revisional Survey Khata No. 5 in village Ranhe, District Ranchi, who died issueless.Both plaintiffs as well as defendants claimed themselves to be the nearest agnates of Odrey Pahan and in that capacity to have succeeded to the suit lands.3. According to plaintiffs, Karcho Pahan had four sons, namely, Kebe, Goera, Binu and Sedga, Descendants of Goera are defendants 1 and 2 and descendants of Binu is defendant No. 7. Sedga had four sons. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are descendants of one of his son, Madu and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are descendants of his another son, Soma. His third son Nonoa died leaving behind a son, Rusu, who had a son, Odrey Pahan.4. Under Chota Nagpur Tenures Act, 1869, Bhuinhari survey was done by Rakhal Das Halder. Revislonal Survey Khawat No. 7/17, corresponding to Cadestral Survey Khewat No. 5/5 was recorded in the name of Odrey Pahan, son of ...
Tag this Judgment!Pratibha Singh and anr. Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR111
Grusharan Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been tiled under Order XLIII, Rule 1(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order dated 23.12.1998, passed by Seventh Subordinate Judge. Ranchi. in Misc. Case No. 26 of 1998. arising out of Execution Case No. 1 of 1983A, whereby the said Misc. case was dismissed as not maintainable.2. Execution Case No. 1 of 1983A was filed to execute a decree for specific performance of agreement for sale passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1981. Decree holder deposited the balance amount of consideration and filed draft sale deed, which was approved. The approved draft deed was typed on stamp paper and filed in Court, which was sent to registration office and on 23.12.1998 the Court executed the sale deed. Judgment debtors in their petition filed on 14.12.1998 purporting to be under Sections 340 read with Section 195(1)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 191, 192, 193, 209, 378, 466, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code made pra...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand and anr. Vs. Mukesh Prasad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC184; 2002(50)BLJR169
V.K. Gutpa, C.J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 2001 whereby the writ application filed by respondent No. 1 writ petitioner against Ramgarh Cantonment Board (respondent No. 2) and others including the State of Jharkhand and Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Appellant Nos. 1 and 2) was allowed and the impugned restrictions put by the appellant No. 2 the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, were quashed.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that Ramgarh Cantonment Board, a Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924, in purported exercise of the power allegedly vested in it under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, invited tenders for collection of Vehicles Tax from the vehicles entering into ramgarh Cantonment area. In response, many persons including writ-petitioner submitted their tenders and deposited earnest money of Rs. 25,000/-. The writ-petitioner being the highest bidder was, accor...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna Sinha and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR150
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders as contained in letters dated 8.1.1997 and 6.8.1998 issued by the respondents whereby prayer made by the petitioners for appointment of her son on compassionate ground has been rejected.2. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, late B.K. Sinha was in the service of the respondent-State Bank of India, Ranchi as Deputy Manager. He died in service in the years 1996. After the death of the husband of petitioner No. 1, therespondent-bank expressed their sorrow and informed the petitioner that there is provisions for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly petitioner applied for appointment of the son of the deceased on compassionate ground. However, the application of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the terminal benefits and pension should be sufficient to sustain the family.3. Respondents' case in the counter-affidavit is that petitioners' application for appointment on compassio...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Singh Vs. Aklu Hazam and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR148
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Admittedly, Kunti Domin owned and possessed a house at Katras Bazar. District Dhanbad, one room (measuring 12' x 13') whereof is subject matter of the present appeal. She died leaving behind two sons, namely, Chaitu Dome and Khetu Dome.2. On 16.3.1964, the plaintiff was inducted as tenant in the said room on monthly rental of Rs. 12/-.3. On 26.8.1971, defendant No, 1 (Chailu Dome) executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed lor the said room for Rs. 700/- in favour of the plaintiff.4. Plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the said room to him for Rs. 2100/- and executed an agreement for the same on 15.10.1973. Rupees 700/- was already with him for which he had executed usufructuary mortgage deed and further on 15.10.1973 a sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid to him. According to the terms of the said agreement, on receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs. 400/- from the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 was to execute the sale deed within three mon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›