Jharkhand Court December 2002 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.
Vivek Garg and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR560(Jhr)]
ORDER1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prosecution against the petitioners for the offences under Section 16(1)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sought to be quashed.2. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners hasassailed the prosecution on variousgrounds but we are concerned in this casewith only two grounds, namely, the defectin the grant of sanction for prosecution andthe fact that the petitioners were not sellingmineral water in bottles and, therefore,there was no question of misbranding of theproducts.3. Mr. Parmanand Mishra, learned JC to GA has appeared for the respondent-State but has not controverted the submissions of Mr. Rai, Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has also not made any submission with respect to the aforesaid two aspects.4. The prosecution case as finding a mention til column 7 of the complaint is reproduced hereinbelow :'Brief descript...
Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR358(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner and her husband, Kailash Kapri both were in the services of the State. After retirement of petitioner, when the respondents sanctioned unutilized leave of 240 days, directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 25,954/- from the said amount vide memo No. 277 dated 11th February, 2002 on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally paid such amount against the head of house rent allowance.2. The case of the respondent as appears from the enclosures is that the husband of petitioner, who was also in the Government service, having received the house rent allowance, the petitioner was not entitled for the same.3. It is not in dispute that neither the husband, nor the petitioner were residing in any Government quarters. Both of them on their own right were getting salary and other allowances including house rent allowance. It is only after the retirement of petitioner, such house rent allowance ordered to be recovered from the leave encashment.4. Almost si...
Raghunath Prasad Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR326(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned counsel for the respondents.2. This writ application was filed on 12.3.2001. Ten days prior there to, i.e. on 2.3.2001, the petitioner signed Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Annexure A to the counter affidavit unequivocally proves that the petitioner has accepted the default up to 15th March, 2001 and he was willing to pay 50% of the outstanding dues and gave an undertaking that in the event he is unable to do so, the respondent authorities would be free to demolish the structures which had been constructed on the plot.3. This apart, at paragraph 27 of the writ application, the petitioner has stated that as per his own calculation, the arrears would be around Rs. 33,000/- and he was ready to pay a sum at the rate of Rs. 77/-per annum as per the agreement. On calculation, Rs. 77/- per annum multiplied by 37 years, the figure that is arrived at is 34,088/-. This proves that t...
Ravi Munda Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR313(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. According to petitioner his father late Rameshwar Munda was an employee of M/s. C.C.L. working as P.R. in Topa Colliery of Hazaribagh District and died in harness on 14th August, 1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not yet issued any order of appointment though petitioner applied vide Annexure 1 and 2/1. It is also alleged that the petitioner also has not been paid the death benefits to which he is entitled.2. In the facts and circumstances as the issue requires determination by the competent authority at first instance, instead of hearing them for the present the petitioner is given liberty to pursue the matter before the competent authority.3. If any representation is preferred by petitioner before the General Manager, Topa Colliery, Hazaribagh with a copy to the Project Officer, Topa Colliery, Hazaribagh, the General Manager will determine and pay the admitted death benefits to the heir of the deceased, if not yet paid, wit...
Smt. Nagina Devi Vs. Smt. Radhaswari Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR332(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 3.10.2002 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 41/2001 by the Munsif Bermo at Tenughat whereby the Court below has granted leave to the defendant-opposite party to contest the suit for eviction filed on the ground of personal necessity.3. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before filing written statement it was necessary for the defendant-opposite party first to take leave of the Court by filing an affidavit and it is only after leave is granted, written statement could be accepted. Learned counsel put reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Manik Roy v. Raghunandan Prasad reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 215.4. In the instant case the only irregularity committed by the defendant-opposite party is that before filing affidavit seeking leave of the Court she filed written statement. Ho...
Maa Cement Company Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar77; 2003(51)BLJR143; [2003(1)JCR348(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the energy bill raised by the respondents for the month of March, 2002 to May, 2002 having raised on the basis of Minimum Guarantee Charges.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a High Tension Insulation Service (HTIS) Consumer having 196 KVA contract demand. According to the petitioner, its meter was burnt in February 2002. The meter was working upto January, 2002 perfectly and the average unit consumption of petitioner from May, 2001 to January, 2002 was about 530 units per month. It is alleged that raising of energy bill on the basis of average Minimum Guarantee charges for the period, the meter remained defective, is illegal. The petitioner earlier brought to the notice of the respondents that the meter burnt, but it was not replaced immediately.3. According to the petitioner, in case of non-functioning of the meter, the energy bill should have been raised on the basis of last three months' average consumption.4. On the other h...
Hirak Point, Dealer and Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petrole ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR315(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner a petroleum dealer has challenged the order dated 9th November, 2002 passed by the Territory Manager (Retail) Dhanbad whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to suspend the sales and supply of all products to the petitioner's retail outlet for a period of 30 days and further levied fine of Rs. 20.000/-.2. According to petitioner the respondents themselves supplied sub-standard materials and there was no adulteration made by petitioner in the petroleum products.3. On the other hand, according to the respondents certain items having been found below the required standard in the petitioner's tank the impugned order of suspension was issued and fine was levied.4. It appears that the respondents initially issued a show- cause notice on 31st October, 2002 which reads as follows : 'By HAND DELIVERYDHN/HIRAK POINT M/s. HIRAK POINTDEALER-M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD., DHAIYA, DHANBAD Dear Sir, your Dealership Affairs : Failure of MS Sample--We refer to the MS sample...
Shankar Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR106; [2003(1)JCR337(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Thepetitioner who was in the services of the State, retired on 31st January, 2001 from the post of Clerk. He having not paid the retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. and salary for the period from 21st June, 2000 to 31st July, 2000, preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in WP (S). No. 4624 of 2001. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st September, 2001 directed the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau to dispose of the claim, as made by the petitioner in his representation.2. After the decision aforesaid, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau disposed of the representation vide impugned Memo No. 1834 dated 18th December, 2001 by which while pay for the period 21st June, 2000 to 30th July, 2000 has been allowed, the prayer for regularization of the service for the period from 31st July, 2000 to 31st December, 2000 has been rejected, the gratuity and leave encashment amount have been withheld...
Purushottam Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR311(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. According to petitioner his appointing authority is Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. He was appointed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Dharbhanga in June, 1996 and joined the post on 10th June, 1996. His services has been placed within the territory of Jharkhand by order issued on 14th November, 2000 in pursuance of which he has joined on 15th February, 2001.2. According to him the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to suspend him. It is also submitted that as per Section 72(i) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 the service of petitioner will be treated to be placed under the Government of Jharkhand for a period of one year and since 15th November, 2001 for all purpose officials of the Government of Bihar are the competent authority to take action. It is also alleged that file relating to suspension was routed by staffs/officials who were never posted in the office pf Registrar Co-operative Societies. The file...
Tara Dutta, Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR341(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. All these cases relate to payment of retrial benefits or death benefits of retired employees or wards of the deceased-employees of the State Electricity Board. They claimed for one or other benefits to which they were entitled but nothing has yet been paid by the authority concerned.2. A Bench of this Court in the case of Jhabhu Pandit and Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors., 2002 (2) JCR 372 (Jhr), held that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the JSEB') shall pay the benefits to those who were posted in the territory of Jharkhand at the time of retirement and the others posted in the territory of the State of Bihar, the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the BSEB') shall pay the benefits.3. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge has been challenged by both the Boards i.e. JSEB and BSEB in Letters Patent Appeal No. 355 of 2002 and other analogous cases. In the said case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »