Jharkhand Court July 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.
Balku Mahli Vs. Mahabir Prasad Tibrewal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR1020
ORDER1. The accident in question occurred on 6.4.1987, at a point of time when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force. The claim application was filed on 15.11.1989, a point of time when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force. Even though, Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of 1939 Act provided a limitation period of six months from the date of occurrence of accident for filing a claim petition, it also simultaneously provided that the Claims Tribunal should have the jurisdiction to entertain the application even after the period of six months, if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause from making the application in time. Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is reproduced hereunder. This reads thus :--'110-A. Application for compensation.--(3) No application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident : Provided that the Claims Tribu...
Mahli Toppo Vs. Inder Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC511; [2003(2)JCR105(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.1998, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 226/92 (R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount.2. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass. The applicant-appellant, Mahli Toppo, filed a compensation case bearing No. 159/86 in which, 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Ranchi awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (Ninety thousand) with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. Fact of the case is that appellant, Mahli Toppo was travelling as passenger in a bus bearing No. BPV-8094 from Nagar to Ranchi and when it reached near Bijupara village on Ranchi-Kuru PWD road at about 3.30 p.m. or so, a tanker MII-6548 belonging to one Inder Prasad Gupta, who was respondent No. 1 in the Claim Case No. 159/86, dashed against the bus. Due t...
Kashinath Poddar Vs. Smt. Archana Sahay and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC241
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The appellant-insured-owner of the vehicle, being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 9th December, 1997, passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 60 of 1987 (R), has challenged the same, 2. The case, in brief, is that deceased Shashi Bhushan Sahay was returning to his office after performing duties at the site. While he was going on the scooter bearing Registration No. BRW 5246, a truck bearing Registration No. BHU 9655, coming in rashand negligent manner, dashed the scooter. The driver of the truck did not blow horn and even after the accident, fled away with the truck. Shashi Bhushan Sahay was brought to Bokaro Hospital, where he was declared dead. The heirs-respondents herein, filed application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation, registered as Title (Compensation) Suit No. 69 of 1984, which was allowed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad, vide jud...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Abha Sinha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2102
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited (for short 'Company') against the Judgment dated 27th February, 1998, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 509 of 1991 (R)/Appeal from Original Order No. 509 of 1991 (R), whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge while refused to set aside the liability of compensation, entrusted upon the Insurer-Company, has modified the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal and brought down the compensation amount from Rs. 13,16,755/- (rupees thirteen lakhs sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty five) to Rs. 9,00,000/- (rupees nine lakhs).One cross-objection against the award, as was filed by the claimants-respondents, having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the claimants-respondents have also preferred a cross-objection under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 172 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim for compensation has been p...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. (Most.) Sundia Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1986
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (Company for short) against the judgment dated 18th February, 1998 passed by the learned single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 1994 (R).2. The applicants Most. Sundia Devi and others filed claim for compensation of Rs. 4 lacs before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro at Chas on the death of her husband Sudan Teli. Her case was that the (deceased) Sudan Teli while coming on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle on 9th July, 1991 at about 6.15 p.m. and reached near the Gate of I.O.L. at Village Salagadih, a Maruti Van bearing No. DNJ-2640 being run rashly coming from Dhanbad side dashed the Motor Cycle due to which the Motor Cycle was damaged. Sudan Teli was thrown on the road and succumbed to serious injury while taken to the Hospital.The case was registered as Title (M.V.) Suit No. 105/91. In the said case, the learned Additional District Judge, Bokaro taking into consideration t...
Anapol Vs. J.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC240; (2003)IILLJ335Jhar
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision of the Tender Committee by which the petitioner's tender was rejected on opening of the technical bid.2. Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to open the price bid of the petitioner and to allow the contract since the petitioner has duly qualified.3. The case of petitioner is that the respondents on 7th April, 2002 invited a sealed tender for annual rate contract for deployment of security personnel for security coverage of various important and vital installations/offices. The sealed tender notice for sale of bill of quantity (B.O.Q.) from 10th April, 2002 to 24th April, 2002 was published and 26th April, 2002 at 12.00 hours date and time for submission of tender papers was shown and opening date and time was 26th April, 2002 at 3.00 p.m. A...
Sudipta Rai @ S. Roy Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR648]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner, a workman was appointed on 14.9.1989 as a Peon by Mr. Mukesh Syal, Site Manager, National Industrial Development Corporation Limited (Corporation for short) with wages of Rs. 600/- per month.He worked for the period from 14.9.1989 to 27.10.1990 in the office of the Site Manager and on 27th October, 1990 he informed by Site Manager that his service was no longer required in the Corporation.2. The petitioner-workman when raised the industrial dispute, the Governor of Bihar vide Notification No. IV/D2-1909/ 94 L & E-274, dated 10th February, 1994 referred the Labour Court, Ranchi to adjudicate the following terms of reference :'Whether the termination of services of Sri Sudipta Rai, Peon, National Industrial Development Corporation Limited. Ranchi is proper? If not, what relief he is entitled to?'3. The case of petitioner-workman was that the Corporation terminated his service without any rhyme or reason, wrongfully, illegally without following...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR613]
ORDERS.K. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (B.C.C.L. for short) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order of the respondent-Union of India, as contained in Order No. L-20012/721/97-IR (Coal-I) dated 30th June, 1998, whereby and whereunder, the 'appropriate Government', the Central Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Dhanbad-'Whether the demand of the Union for the employment of land losers as per the enclosed annexure by the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. is justified? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled?' 2. The main question raised by the petitioner is whether the 'person concerned', can be termed as workman, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act for short) :And Whether the dispute as referred can be termed as '...
Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Vs. Manju Devi and ors. Etc ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2013
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In both the appeals common question has been raised as to whether the Insurer can be asked to pay the entire liability both of the Insurer and insured, at first instance, and then to recover the amount, excess to its liability, from the insured or not. As such, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. For determination of the aforesaid issue, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one of both the cases, as mentioned hereunder ;In LPA No. 36 of 1998(R), the second respondent Deepak Kumar is the claimant. On 8th February, 1989, while he was traveling in a maxi-taxi, bearing Registration No. BEN-9653 from Kuru to Ranchi, the vehicle met with an accident, being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which several passengers, including the claimant, received injuries. One person died at the spot and some other persons also died in the Hospital.3. The claimant-Deepak Kumar was treated ...
Hridayangshu Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1831; 2003CriLJ624
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 13-2-200.1, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif has allowed the Opposite parties to appear and file show cause and also directed the petitioner to reproduce his witnesses for giving opportunities to cross-examine those witnesses in the preliminary enquiry, which was conducted by the Court below Under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Misc. Case No. 23/2000.2. Short facts giving rise to this application is that a Title Suit No. 16 of 1988 for specific performance was filed by the petitioner and others against Rekha Bhattacharjee and others claiming that there was an agreement between the petitioner and Smt. Rekha Bhattacharjee and others for sale of property for a consideration of Rs. 1,36,000/- out of which Rs. 35,937/-were paid in advance and the rest amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »