Jharkhand Court September 2001 Judgments
Gray Hound Transport Company Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ869
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay compensation on account of total loss and damage to the vehicle caused by explosion and fire by the terrorists/extremists and also for payment of hire charges and damages.2. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle namely 'Tipper' having registration No. 20G/5275. The vehicle was requisitioned by the respondents and seized on 14.9.99 at Khelari in the district of Ranchi for the purpose of Parliamentary Election, 1999. On 16.9.99 said vehicle was sent to Palamau in the custody and possession of respondent No. 5, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer, Palamau. On 18.9.99 while the said vehicle was on election duty, it was completely damaged and destroyed by explosion caused by terrorists/extremists at Balumath police station. During the relevant time the said vehicle was carrying the officers and election materials for conducting election. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR106
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the award, dated 6.2.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Reference Case No. 6/93, whereby it was held that the termination of services of the concerned workman by way of superannuation is proper and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 2. It appears that the Government of Bihar, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, vide notification, dated 9.7.1993 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for jurisdiction :-- 'Whether the termination of services of Shree K.N. Sharma. Ticket No. 159863 P.No. 49901 workman. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur is proper If' not whether he should be reinstated on thejob or what compensation he should be paid.' 3. The case of the workman was that his service was wrongly terminated with effect from 4. 1. 1989 by way of premature superannuation instead ol' his actual date of superannuation falling on 15.1.2005. According to the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Kishore Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1028]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. It is really sad state of affair that although writ application was filed in April, 2001, but neither State of Bihar nor State of Jharkhand have filed their counter-affidavit. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment on various grounds but in my opinion one ground would be sufficient to dispose of the writ application.3. Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Ranchi. Pursuant to the acceptance of tender for construction of works an agreement was executed by and between the respondents and the petitioner-contractor. The contractor furnished security by way of Bank guarantee. Subsequently, petitioner was charge-sheeted on the allegation that the Bank guarantee furnished by the contractor was not properly verified and it was not genuine bank guarantee. Petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding. The Inquiring Officer after considering the facts and material, come to a finding that the Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Prasad Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR174
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner has challenged the Resolution dated 16.12.1999 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary. Bihar State Electricity Board, whereby the respondents have directed to recover Rs. 26,500/- from the salary of the petitioner.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was posted as Junior Electrical Engineer at Siwli Jari Supply Section in the District of Dhanbad. He was assigned duty of collection of revenue from the consumers. It appears that on the relevant date the petitioner alongwith one Udai Shankar Sinha, bill clerk/cashier of the said department, collected a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- in cash and different cheques from the consumers and while returning to office some unknown miscreants looted away the money including cheques at the point of revolver. A criminal case was instituted in the Chirkunda Police Station being Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 303/95. The petitioner and the cashier also informed the incident to their higher authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ishwari Prasad Saha
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR110
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The opposite party filed Eviction Suit No. 8 of 1998 against the petitioner under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1982, which has been decreed by impugned order dated 28.6.1999. 2. According to the opposite party, on 1.10.1988, the petitioner was inducted as tenant for a fixed period of ten years ending on 30.9.1998 in the suit premises, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint. The premises contained c ,e room of Holding No. 4, under Ward No. 12 of Jhumri Tilaiya Municipality.3. After expiry of the tenancy period, the suit was filed for eviction both under Section 11(l)(c) and (e) of the said Act.4. Inspite of service of summons, petitioner did not appear to contest the suit. It was fixed for ex parte hearing on 10.3.1999.5. The opposite party examined two witnesses on 10.3.1999. Plaintiff examined himself and his son as PWs 1 and 2 and produced registered Kirayanama dated 28.9.1988 (Exhibit 1) counter-foil of receipts show...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Sahu Vs. Sukhram Prasad
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR108
Gurusnaran Sharma, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant. By registered sale deed dated 12.7.1989 (Exhibit 2), plaintiff purchased two and half Kaths land from Sardar Devendra Singh and Sardar Charanjit Singh, bearing Plot No. 5, Mohalla-Madhukam of Ranchi town Holding No. 1/H, within ward No. 11/A of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 2. Defendant was already in occupation of one room (10' x 20') thereof as a tenant from before. 3. Plaintiffs vendor, Sardar Devendra Singh, informed the tenant about the aforesaid transfer and directed him to pay rent from July, 1989 onwards to the plaintiff.4. According to the plaintiff, no rent was paid by the defendant from July, 1989, onwards to him and as such on 28.11.1989 he sent notice (Exhibit 1) to the defendant to vacate the suit premises. 5. Plaintiff filed Eviction (Title) Suit No. 58 of 1998 for defendant's eviction from the suit premises detailed in Schedule, given at the foot of the plaint.6. Defendant contested the suit on the ground that after t...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar Rajya Vidyut Union Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2737
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This contempt application is arising out of order passed in CWJC No. 290/2001.3. Writ petitioner is the Union of employees working in different departments of the Bihar State Electricity Board. The members of the Union have been working since 20/30/40 years and their date of birth were duly recorded in the service record. However, all of a sudden, the authority of the Board issued a general order directing all the employees to appear before the Medical Board for the assessment of age. The said general order was challenged by the Union by filing CWJC No. 290/2001 on the ground inter alia that the authority of the Board without assigning any reason and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, can not compel the employees who worked about 30- 40 years to go for medical examination for assessment of age. This Court finding prima facie case, directed Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary learned counsel for the Board to file counter-affidavit. This...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Ainul Ansari Il Mian Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ851
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. This is an unique and a very peculiar case where a helpless victim of circumstances, more so created by a ridiculous order passed by no less a person than an Additional Sessions Judge, has to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievances.2. It appears that some lady by the name of Rasmuni Manjhian might be having some friendly or other relationship with the petitioner. Both had been working in the C.C.L. at the relevant time. The lady admittedly is the mother of the informant. She is stated to be more than 40 years of age. It is no body's case that she is under 18 years of age, or that she was below 18 years of age as on the alleged date and time of occurrence ofany alleged incident. In fact, interestingly, no incident as such is even alleged to have occurred in this case. Whether the lady and the petitioner at the relevant time had been having friendly relationship or were having some type of an illicit relationship is of no consequence as far as thi...
Tag this Judgment!Brahma Ramani @ Rabbani Vs. J.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1020]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. From the Annexure 4, a photo copy of the service book, it appears that the date of birth of petitioner was recorded as 5th January, 1953 but it was subsequently struck off and made 24 years as on 19.12.1977. Again another date of 1st May. 1953 shown and struck off in the left hand side of the service book (Annexure 4). The date of birth was shown as 23rd May, 1953 as per school leaving certificate.2. From the impugned order contained in letter No. 806 dated 15.4.2000, it appears that there being different date of birth recorded one after another an Apex Medical Board was constituted and petitioner was examined in the year 1999. The Apex Medical Board assessed the age of petitioner as 55 years as on 29th November, 1999 and the date of birth was assessed and recorded as November, 1944, this Court finds no illegality and the Court cannot sit in appeal over such assessment.3. It may be mentioned that the certificate enclosed by petitioner as Annexure 1 issued b...
Tag this Judgment!Reveka Gari and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1021]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who are the widow and sons of the deceased employee of the respondent-RINPAS after having been appointed on compassionate ground and worked for about five years, have been terminated on the ground that the Superintendent at the relevant time was not competent to make such appointment. 3. The case of the respondents is that, by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme Court in writ petition (Civil) No. 339/86, the respondents became Autonomous Body with effect from 1.10.1994 and since then it is being managed by the Governing Body headed by the Divisional Commissioner as Chairman with other members. 4. In view of the Supreme Court order, prima facie, the Superintendent of RINPAS had no authority to make such appointment and, therefore the appointment of the petitioners made in 1995 cannot be legalised by any order passed by this Court. However, the fact remains that how far the action of the respondents in re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »