Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1739
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. The Death Reference No. 1 of 2002 under Section 366 Cr. P.C. and three criminal appeals aforesaid preferred by the appellants named above arise from the impugned judgment dated 22-3-2002 passed in S. T. No. 443/ 99 by Sri Prabodh Ranjan Dash, Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge IV, Ranchi whereby and whereunder appellant Anil Sharma (Cr. Appeal No. 166/02) has been found guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 307/34 I.P.C. and convicted and he was sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and in default thereof to undergo R.I. for three months whereas the rest of the appellants named above have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : II(2003)ACC55; 2004ACJ1577; [2003(1)JCR277(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The entire thrust of the claimant's claim before the Tribunal was based upon and linked with the injuries sustained by him because of the accident and correspondingly also the extent of permanent disablement (68%) caused to him by these injuries. Ext. 4 series documents and Ext. 8 document appear to be such documents which the claimant produced before the Tribunal during the course of recording of his own statement as his own witness. Relying upon these exhibits the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,86,000/- as the compensation in favour of the claimant.2. Undoubtedly, the course of action adopted by the claimant was not legally correct in as much as the Tribunal should not have exhibited the aforesaid documents because these documents were not properly proved by the claimant. The only way by which these documents could have been proved and hence admitted into evidence was by producing the author of the documents who could have proved the contents of the documents, identified his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(1)JCR333(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties inspite of service of notice.2. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, VIIIth, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 1998 whereby he has dismissed the appeal but granted relief to the plaintiff-opposite parties which was sought for in the application for the grant of injunction.3. The plaintiff filed title suit No. 86 of 1990 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 is that the authorities of Dhanbad Municipality and the Circle Officer, Dhanbad have demolished some portion of southern side of the boundary wall of the suit land despite objection made by the plaintiff. In the said suit an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC was filed for temporary injunction alleging that the defendants have dumped building materi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(1)BLJR313; [2003(1)JCR409(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ1139Jhar
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The petitioner-management of the Central Mine Planning & Design Institute (hereinafter called as CMPDI) has filed this writ application for quashing the award dated 24th April, 1997, as contained in Annexure 8 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, respondent No. 1, whereby and whereunder the reference has been allowed in favour of the respondent No. 2-workmen (represented by the Secretary, National Coal Workers' Congress, water Board Colony, Hirapur, Dhanbad).2. On perusal of 'Annexure-8, it transpires that the following reference was made to the tribunal by the Central Government, Ministry Of Labour ;'Whether the action of the management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd., Regional Institute No. II, P.O. Koyla Nagar, Dist. Dhanbad in not regularizing/absorbing S/Sri P.K. Barat, Hare Ram Pandey as Electrician, Shri A.K. Banerjee as Water Carrier and Shri Janardan Prasad Singh as Cat. I. Mazdoor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR395(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This is an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with the request/ prayer for appointment of an arbitrator. The prayer is reproduced as under :--'It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to appoint sole arbitrator other than an employee of opposite party SAIL/BSI to arbitrate upon the dispute and claims in the ends of justice. And/Or Graciously be pass any order/orders deem fit in the matter.' 2. There is no dispute that a contract agreement between the parties came to be executed. There is also no dispute that between the parties, there is an arbitration agreement which is in the form of Clause 18 of the Conditions of Contract. The relevant extract of Clause 18, in so far as it pertains to our case, is reproduced hereinbelow. It reads thus :'18. ARBITRATION CLAUSE. As per existing guide lines on date. Except where otherwise provided for in the contract all questions, of dispute or diffe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR313; [2004(3)JCR265(Jhr)]
1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 2.5.2001, passed by the learned single Judge, in CWJC Nos. 423 and 451 of 2001, whereby those two writ applications were dismissed and the common award dated 23.9.1996 passed in Reference Case No. 134 and 135 of 1993 was not interfered with.2. The following disputes were referred in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad for adjudication, at the instance of the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union :--'Whether the demand of Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union for employment of Sri Binay Kumar Singh and 21 others (as per list enclosed) on the roll of Balihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?''Whether the demand of Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union for employment of Shri Anil Kr. and 22 others (as per list enclosed) on the roll of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : III(2003)ACC211
ORDER1. The entire thrust of the claimant's claim before the Tribunal was based - upon and linked with the injuries sustained by him because of the accident and correspondingly also the extent of permanent disablement (68%) caused to him by these injuries. Ext. 4 series documents and Ext. 8 document appear to be such documents which the claimant produced before the Tribunal during the course of recording of his own statement as his own witness. Relying upon these exhibits the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,86,000/- as the compensation in favour of the claimant.2. Undoubtedly, the course of action adopted by the claimant was not legally correct inasmuch as the Tribunal should not have exhibited the aforesaid documents because these documents were not properly proved by the claimant. The only way by which these documents could have been proved and hence admitted into evidence was by producing the author of the documents who could proved the contents of the documents, identified his sign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(1)JCR408(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.N. Chandra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos, 2 to 5 Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Junior Counsel to the Government Advocate is also present in Court representing respondent No. 1.2. At the very outset, Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the Petitioner craves leave of this Court to be allowed to implead the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as respondent No. 6. He is permitted to do so.3. The petitioner has been working since 29.6.1994 on daily wages after she had been given compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband, Subodh Chandra Mishra who was working as an Assistant in the Bank and who died on 26.34.1993. The aforementioned fact relating to the working of the Petitioner in the status of a daily wager has not been denied by the respondents. On the contrary, at paragraph 7 there is an admission that it is true that the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR587(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cognizance dated 20.4.2002 taken by the learned CJM Hazaribagh.2. SI Sri Rajesh Kumar office-in-charge Keredari Police Station, on his own statement, registered a case under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and various other sections under Arms Act, Explosives Substance Act and CLA Act and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. After submission of charge-sheet learned CJM took cognizance under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner and others and transferred the case to the Court of Sri P.K. Sukla, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh for commitment of the case.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cognizance taken in the case is bad in law because Section 50 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act specially lays down that no Court can take cognizance of any offences under this Act without the previous sanction of the Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(1)JCR335(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner, Somaru Ram has preferred this writ petition for direction on respondents to provide the all does, having been allowed voluntarily retirement under Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (VRS), such as, VR wages, gratuity, CMPF, transfer TA, leave wages and pension etc. The respondents have denied to pay such benefits on the ground that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for impersonation and without conclusion of the said proceeding the petitioner was wrongly allowed to retire under VR Scheme.2. The case of petitioner is that the respondents cannot raise the question of impersonation, the matter having been settled by the competent Court of law i.e. the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2) vide award dated 30th August, 1985 passed in reference Case No. 94/82.3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in the services of respondents M/s. Central Coalfield...
Tag this Judgment!