Jharkhand Court June 2002 Judgments
Shrawan Kumar Giri Vs. Smt. Rita Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar54; II(2002)DMC568
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Admittedly, appellant was married with respondent on 14-5-1989 and on 19-4-1990, a daughter was born out of their wedlock. On 18-4-1995, appellant filed Matrimonial Title Suit No. 25 of 1995 against respondent for a decree for dissolution of marriage under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. According to appellant, after marriage, respondent was living with him, but gradually she started quarrelling and torturing him and his parents and became cruel and inhuman to them. She was also cruel to her newly born daughter and was neglecting her. Respondent used to take drug to get her menses stopped and left his house on 8-6-1991, leaving her baby and told her in-laws to marry their son, the appellant, with another girl.3. Appellant's further case was that in spite of his best efforts his wife did not come back to live with him and ultimately on 6-3-1995 he gave a legal notice to her to come and live with him, i.e., for restitution of conjugal rights, oth...
Tag this Judgment!Anjar Mian Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ649Jhar
ORDER1. Heard Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1997 passed in CWJC No. 1357 of 1996 (R) whereby learned single Judge, although granted some relief to the petitioner-appellant regarding payment of retiral dues alter superannuation, but affirmed the orderpasged by the respondent in departmental proceeding and disallowed the claim of the petitioner for payment of remuneration during the period of suspension. 3. The petitioner-appellant while working as a Munsi in Bokaro Colliery in 1986, he was served with the charge sheet on 25.9.1986 alleging certain misconduct committed by him. By the said order, the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Departmental proceeding was finally concluded and order of punishment was issued on 27.6.1991, i.e. about ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC6
ORDER1. Section 5 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994, makes every owner of a registered motor vehicle liable to pay tax on such vehicle at the rate as specified in the Schedule to the Act. Section 17 of the Act read with Sections 18 and 19 stipulates that if prior intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of the vehicle is given to the Taxing Officer in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the rules, the registered owner can be granted benefit of exemption from payment of tax or refund of tax for the period during which the vehicle was not in use. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. BEN 6555 and claims exemption from payment of tax for the period 15.3.2000 to 15.9.2000 on the ground that during this period the vehicle was not in use the same having been forcibly taken away by MCC terrorists.2. Under Section 31 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 the State Government has been given power to make rules for the purpose of c...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. JaIn Vs. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR100(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the bill for the month of August 1999 and bill dated 5th October, 2000.2. The case of the petitioner is that the bills have been raised arbitrarily without any basis. The petitioner is not liable to pay delayed payment of surcharge nor liable to pay fuel surcharge for the period he has not consumed any unit.3. On 7th November, 2000 the case was taken up and the Court directed the petitioner to deposit fifty per cent of impugned demand within a month and remaining amount in three equal monthly instalments, subject to the result of the case, which is stated to have already been4. In the facts and circumstances, as the question relating to quantum of bill raised is under challenged the matter cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.5. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, area Electricity Board, Ranchi.6. If any application is preferred by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR364(Jhr)]
1. The only dispute in this case is with respect to the alleged payment of Rs. 90,000/-. The appellant-writ petitioner asserts that he paid Rs. 90,000/-to the Bihar Housing Board on 28th February, 1995. Annexure 4 at page 24 of the L.P.A. is a copy of the money receipt, allegedly issued by the Bihar State Housing Board. The petitioner-appellant further asserts that the Hire Purchase Agreement (Annexure 5, page 25 of the L.P.A) also mentions about the petitioner having paid Rs. 1,76,686/- and this amount actually reflects the inclusion of aforesaid Rs. 90,000/-, as claimed by the petitioner.2. The respondent No. 2, Jharkhand State Housing Board, being successions to the Bihar State Housing Board disputes the receipt of the aforesaid payment. Earlier, even the Bihar State Housing Board had disputed the receipt of the aforesaid payment. This disputed question of fact can best be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration.3. The Hire purchase Agreement actually contains an arbitration clau...
Tag this Judgment!Pranesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1594
ORDER1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in Complaint Case No. 655 of 2000 whereby and whereunder, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. A complaint case was filed on behalf of M/s. Gopa! Agency alleging therein that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. Fina Lubricant Ltd., is dealing with the business of lubricants and husks and for the purpose of business dealing, the petitioner has opened an account in the State Bank of India, Bari Pahari Branch, Biharsharif vide A/C. No. CD 91 and has been granted by the Bank a cheque book which started from Cheque Book No. 236481 onwards. In course of dealing with the business, a substantial amount fell due payable to the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3796
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19-7-2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, Vigilance took cognizance for the offence under Section 7-B(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with Ranchi Sadar Vigilance PS Case No. 7 of 2001 (Special Case No. 11 of 2001).2. The prosecution case in brief as stated that one Md. Taslim made an allegation against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner being a Motor Vehicle Inspector as making illegal demand of Rs. 5000/- for giving report of the vehicle in his favour but later on he agreed to give the report only on receipt of Rs. 2000/-. Thereafter the informant made a complaint in Vigilance Department against the petitioner with regard to his illegal demand and accordingly a raiding party was organised and thereafter the petitioner was apprehended as well as currency of note wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sanju Kumari Vs. Rahim Ansari and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC166
ORDER1. What is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is that part of the order dated 24.7.2001, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godda in Title Claim Case No. 20 of 2000, whereby it has fastened the liability to pay the award amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act upon the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle in question. The sole contention of the appellant is that the vehicle in question having been duly insured with the respondent No. 3 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Godda Branch), the liability to pay the award amount is vested with the insurer.2. Mr. ALok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 does not dispute the fact that the vehicle in question was insured and that therefore, the insurer also cannot dispute that indeed the liability to pay the amount of award under Section 140 could not have been fastened upon the appellant owner.3. This appeal is allowed. The aforesaid im...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Geeta Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ190
ORDER1. The only point involved in this appeal is with respect to the entitlement of the claimant to maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in view of the bar created under Section 167 of the Act. Section 167 reads thus :--'167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.'2. The contention of the appellant insurer before the Tribunal as also before us during the hearing of this appeal has been that because the claimant had exercised option of receiving compensation from the employer of the deceased under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Geeta Sinha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: III(2002)ACC210
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. The only point involved in this appeal is with respect to the entitlement of the claimant to maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in view of the bar created under Section 167 of the Act. Section 167 reads thus:167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.2. The contention of the appellant insurer before the Tribunal as also before us during the hearing of this appeal has been that because the claimant had exercised option of receiving compensation from the employee of the deceased under the Workmen's Compensation Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »