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.
Satya Narayan Pandey and Ors. and Citizens' and Cause Vs. the State of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR132(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Education is the foundational edifice of the Rule of law. Rule of law, in turn, is so inextricably interlined with democracy that one can not survive without the other. Rule of law and democracy are so synonymous with each other that both co-exist in each other's companionship and blemish or attack on the one directly results in the other becoming non-functional. Education to the citizens of a country practicing Rule of law and democracy is one medium which readies the citizens not only to profess, but practice Rule of law and democracy. Education with it brings literacy; literacy in a way is a consequence of being educated. If the citizens are properly educated and are literate, they are in a position to differentiate betweenevil and the good, between that is required and desired by them and what should be rejected and discarded by them. That is why it is often said that the educated masses are the assets of a democracy and that democracy in it pristine glory props up Rule of ...
Sattar Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR339(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to absorb him to the post of Masson (Raj Mistry) or any other suitable post as per Government policy decision.2. The case of petitioner is that he is working as Masson (Raj Mistry) since 19th April, 1966 having initially appointed in Tenughat Sub-Division Dam Project, Tenu-ghat. He has also been given time bound promotion w.e.f. 1st April 1981 by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Ranchi vide letter No. 2628 dated 2nd August, 1988. It is alleged that while the respondents regularized the services of others, have not considered the case of petitioner.3. The respondent No. 5 in its affidavit has taken plea that the concerned Deputy Commissioner is required to take action for absorption of petitioner.4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the following statement has been made :'That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitio...
Anand Prakash and ors. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR329(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are appellants. They had opened different accounts in the United Bank of India, Jhumri Tilaiya Branch, Kodarma, details of which were given in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. All those accounts, as claimed by the plaintiffs were joint accounts in the names of the different members of the family, of which admittedly the plaintiff No. 7, Bhanu Prakash Lal, son of late Durga Sharan Lal was the Karta. He was as as-sessee of Income Tax department and all the aforesaid joint family accounts were duly disclosed by him in voluntary disclosure in 1975 under Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was also accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 1976- 77.2. The plaintiff No. 7 was assessed total amount of tax at Rs. 2,40,700/- and the department calculated the total outstanding dues at Rs. 2,52,750.45 paise, under Section 226(3) of the Act. On 27.3.1979 the Income Tax Officer sent notice to the United Bank...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Malti Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR330(Jhr)]
ORDER1. New India Assurance Company Ltd. has challenged the award dated 30th August, 1993, passed by the Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 77 of 1990, whereby a sum of Rupees one lakh was assessed as compensation amount payable under the Motor Vehicle. Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') to the claimant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment.2. In a motor accident, on 9.2.1990, near Murma Bridge within Mandak Police Station, of Ranchi District, Hari Shankar Singh, husband of the respondent No. 1 lost his life. He was an agriculturist.3. It was established that there was head-on-collision between two vehicles, namely, the Trekker (BR-14L-4749) and the Truck (BHV 6621) on account of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. At the time of accident both the vehicles were insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd.4. We find no illegality committed by the tribunal in assessing...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›