Jharkhand Court February 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.
indra Nath Bhagat Vs. Dukha Bhagat and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1602
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J.1. An application has been filed on behalf of the respondent under Sections 83(1), 86(1) and 97 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for deciding the preliminary issue about the maintainability of Election Petition and praying therein to dismiss the Election Petition on account of non-compliance of mandatory provision.2. It is stated that there are vague and bald allegation as there is no material in the Election Petition which may give rise to valid cause of action. There is no attestation by the Election petitioner in the original and copy of the Election petition supplied to the Respondent No. 1 as well as there is no concise statement of material facts as required under Section 8 of the R.P. Act. There is also absence of endorsement of Notrary Public/Oath Commissioner on the copy of the affidavit accompanying the Election petition. The allegation as made in the Election petition are unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious, tainted and prejudiced as well as it is...
Bishun Teli and ors. Vs. Bhupat Teli and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR969
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J.1. Plaintiffs are appellants. One Churo Teli, recorded tenant had five sons. On partition among them, the Suit Plot No. 4171, area 5 decimals came in khas possession of Bhairo Teli, who left behind three sons, Hiraman, Sukar and Bishun, Plaintiff No. 1. Hiraman died leaving behind his son, Defendant No. 1 and Sukar left behind his sons. Defendant NOS. 2 and 3. Bishun along with his wife and son filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1974 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in alternative for recovery of possession over the suit land, if found dispossessed during pendency of the suit.2. Plaintiffs claimed partition by metes and bounds among three branches by Panchayati and allotment of suit land to them. A compound wall was- constructed by them on the southern side of the plot in question. Plaintiff No. 1 transferred it to his wife, Plaintiff No. 2 by registered sale deed, Ext. 1.3. According to Defendants 1 to 3 partition took place in the year 1950, w...
Tapeshwar Sahu Vs. B.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1590
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J.1. This application relates to grant of electrical connection in the premises of petitioner appertaining to Holding No. 159/A, M.S. Plot Nos. 217, 218, 219 and 211 (Part) at Ratu Road, Opposite New Market, Ranchi.2. The respondents by their letterdated 30.10.2000 directed the petitionerto deposit the dues of Rs. 39538.36 paiseas was outstanding against erstwhile occupant of the premises to get such electrical connection with further stipulation that his application, otherwise shall be cancelled.3. In spite of time granted to the respondents, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of B.S.E.B. Mr. Tapen Sen, counsel for the Board relied on Circular No. 235 dated 8.2.2000 in support of the stand taken in letter dated 30.10.2000. Relevant portion of the aforesaid circular dated 8,2.2000 reads as follows :-- 'Instances have come to the notice of the Board where reconnection has been given to the premises disconnected earlier for non-payment of electricity d...
Prahlad Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1062
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.10.1999 as contained in Annexure 4 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porahat Chakradharpur, whereby and whereunder licence granted to the petitioner under the Provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Control) Order, 1984 has been cancelled.2. Petitioner's case is that he is having Licence No. 16/84 granted under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Control) Order, 1984 (hereinafter called the Unification Order, 1984) and is carrying on his business of running a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Licence. Petitioner wascalled upon to show cause vide Letter No. 313 dated 21.8.1999 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porahat, Chakradharpur as to why his licence be not cancelled on the ground that he lifted 25 quintals of rice for the month of May, 1999 on 19.7.1999 and 25 quintals for June, 1999 on 22.7.1999 but he distributed only ...
Mines Safety Appliances (Msa) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1060
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the Order dated 10.9.1998 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dhanbad in RC Case No. 11 (S)/92(D), whereby and whereunder the application for discharge of the petitioner was rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as stated that Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI, Dhanbad received information that M/s. Voltas Limited, Gillander House, N.S. Road, Calcutta and the petitioner Company entered into a conspiracy with each other and cheated M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad to the tune of Rs. 4,43,865/- by dishonestly and fraudulently claiming that import duty was paid to Calcutta Customs which was used in manufacture of self rescuers and supplied to BCCL. It is further alleged that Coal India Ltd. Calcutta placed an order No. CIL/C2D/ Self Rescuers/28520/Voltas/1543 dated 16.11.1985 to accused M/s. Voltas Ltd. for supply of 11,612 pieces of self-rescuers model W 65 at the rate of Rs. 670/- per piece. It was stipulate that any...
Tulsi Sao and ors. Vs. Kedar Sahu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1695
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Original plaintiff, Mostt Lagni, wife of Tulsi Sao filed Title Suit No. 62 of 1976/2 of 1982 against defendant, Bhakoo Sao for declaration of title and interest over 6' x 53' land, being part of Plot No. 555 towards northern side running from east to west and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit land. 2. Admittedly plaintiff was owner of plot No. 555 and defendant was owner of continuous north plot No. 554. Dispute was whether suit land was part and parcel of Plot No. 555 or Plot No. 554. 3. According to plaintiff, some time in the year 1963, while constructing his house over Plot No. 554, defendant claimed northern vacant portion of Plot No. 554 and wanted to extend construction thereon, which was resisted. The defendant filed complaint case in Criminal Court, against the plaintiff and her husband, who were convicted and were sentenced to pay fine. Thereafter, defendant being embolded by decision in ...
Basanti Kachhap and ors., Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1600
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard, petitioners in these five writ applications claim to have been empanelled in 1987, panel prepared for Ranchi District for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools. Their claim is that in-spite of possessing requisite qualification and training, they were not appointed. A direction, therefore, was sought to be given to the respondents to appoint them.2. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision in Anil Kumar v. Chief Secretary, 1987 PLJR 846, wherein such panels prepared districtwise for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the year 1985 were declared unconstitutional. However, appointment already made from those panels earlier were not disturbed.3. Reference may also be made to a Division Bench decision in Birendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1991 (2) PLJR 18, wherein again such panel prepared districtwise was declared unconstitutional and appointments made therefrom in the meantime were ...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prakash Devi and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC41; 2001(49)BLJR1599
1. A very short and limited question arises for consideration in this appeal.2. Three persons were moving on a two-wheeler scooter bearing Registration No. BHV 7079 on 24.12.1981. A maxi-taxi bearing Registration No. BHM 799 collided with the scooter dragging it along for about 40'/50' and, ultimately, dashed against an electric poll. All the three occupants of the scooter died. The scooter was insured with the appellant/Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the maxi-taxi was insured with Respondent No. 3/New India Insurance Co. Ltd.3. Even though, the Motor/Accidents, Claims Tribunal appears to have held that the driver of the scooter was guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident, in appeal the learned Single Judge set-aside that finding of the Tribunal and in so many words held that even though the driver of the scooter was not wearing protective helmet, he was not and could not be held guilty of any contributory negligence in causing the accident. Accordin...
Balkeshwar Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR366]; (2001)IILLJ323Jhar
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 72,087,76 ps. illegally withheld from gratuity and other voluntary retirement benefits of petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, he was in' the services of respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) and obtained voluntary retirement in terms with V.R. Scheme.3. The respondents though properly sanctioned the amount on such retirement, but a sum of Rs. 72,087.76 ps. was illegally withheld.4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have accepted that the petitioner retired under V.R. Scheme w.e.f. 20th August, 1999. However, plea has been taken that the date of birth was recorded as 26th October, 1941 and the date of appointment was 23rd November, 1958. On the basis of date of appointment, the petitioner having found to have worked for 42 years 11 months and 3 days and as no person can work more than 42 years, the excess payment made has been adjust...
Suresh Paswan Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR450]
ORDERS.N. Mishra, J. 1. After having heard the learned counsel of the parties and going through the pleadings filed on their behalf, this writ application is being disposed of at the time of admission itself. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.12.1998 passed by the respondent-authority whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated in terms of clause 28 of the Certified Standing Orders of BCCL. The sum and substance of the allegation made against the petitioner is that he abused and assaulted the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, with lathi when he objected the petitioner forcibly trying to mark his attendance for the period for which he remained absent. As stated above, the services of the petitioner was terminatedin terms of Clause 28 of the Standing Orders, which reads thus :-- 'Clause 28. Special procedure in certain cases.--Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a Court of law or where the Chairman/Managing Dire...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »