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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mossamat Sundia Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: III(2002)ACC594
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. 105/1991. In the said case, the learned Additional District Judge, Bokaro taking into consideration t...
Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Manju Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: III(2002)ACC549
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 L.P.A. No. 36 of 1998(R), the second respondent Deepak Kumar is the claimant. On 8th February, 1989, while he was travelling in a maxi-taxi, being 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 ...
Guhi Ram Mahto and ors. Vs. Mohan Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2189
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patnet is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 1997, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the First Appeal being F.A. No. 54/1983 (R) filed by the appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by Additional Sub-Judge, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 109/1979.2. The original plaintiffs Smt.Radhi Mahatwain and Smt. Ban Mahatwain, who were respondents in the appeal filed Title Suit No. 109/1979 for decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 23.3.1979 executed by them in favour of the original defendants in respect of half share in the land as per details in Schedule A of the plaint. Plaintiff's case was that the suit land were recorded in the name of Most. Sabi wife of Lohra Mahto and Govind Mahto having half share each. Lohra Mahto and Govind Mahto were sons of Haradhan. Lohra died leaving behind his widow Sabi and two daughters, Radhi and Sahachari and Sahachari also died leaving behind her only daughter Bari. R...
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Employers in Relation to the Management of Hec an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR229(Jhr)]
1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.1999 passed in CWJC No. 914/97 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award given by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 6/90.2. It appears that the concerned workmen raised an industrial dispute after their application for higher pay scale was rejected under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute was finally referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of reference was as under :'Whether Sharb Sri Ram Naresh Singh Personal No. 64910, Md.Zaffar P.No. 64193, Sudhan Munda P. No. 61907, Chamru Oraon P-64908, Birendra Singh P-No. 64902 and Sri M.N. Pandey P-6409 of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi at present on the post of Yard Supervisors are entitled to get promotion in the following pay scales14.2.1966 pay scale of Rs. 85-110 30.10.1972 pay scale of Rs. 105-115 31.5.1978 pay scale of Rs. 140-175 26.12.1985 pay s...
Binod Kumar Vs. Sr. Divisional Manager, Lic and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1977
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11.1.1999 passed in CWJC No. 19 of 1999 (R) whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the remedy under Industrial Disputes Act is available to the petitioner-appellant. The order dated 11.1.1999 passed in the writ petition reads as under :'Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On petitioner's own showing that he is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act in my view this writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner, if so advised, may seek remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.This application is dismissed.' 2. The appellant, in the aforementioned writ petition challenged the order of termination from the post of Development Officer in the service of respondent-Life Insurance Corporation, Eastern Zonal Office, Calcutta. The main ground taken in the writ petition is that the appellant's termination order is illegal an...
Basanti Devi and ors. Vs. Devi Dyal Bhagat and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC303; [2003(2)JCR112(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.1999 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 583/1993. The judgment dated 15.1.1999 reads as under :--'Hear the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, It is not in dispute that on 21.1.1988 Shiv Shankar Sahu, while riding the moped bearing Registration No. BPY-6403 belong to Devi Dayal Bhagat was dashed by a truck, Registration No. whereof could not be ascertained and lost his life. His heirs filed complaint ease No. 37 of 1988 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Neither the deceased was owner of the moped nor it was proved by the claimants that he had a valid driving licence. It was said that one Tovious Tatad was pillion rider on the said moped and he was the eye witness and only person to say as to whether the accident took place for the fault of the deceased or the truck driver but surprising...
K.P. Mineral Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporati ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR539
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties. 2. The Writ Petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.4.2002, which has been passed by the respondent No. 4 (Deputy Manager, Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd.), whereby and whereunder the respondents, in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1997 of 2002, inter alia intimated that the petitioner was liable to make payment of a total amount of Rs. 32.76 lakhs. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the earlier letter dated 4.9.1992 as contained in Annexure 3, whereby and whereunder the Petitioners were informed that the rates of interest in relation to transactions made after 1.5.1992 was being revised under the IDBI Re-finance Scheme. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the letter dated 31.3.1993 issued by the respondents and as contained at Annexure 5 Series, by which the petitioners were informed about the resolution of the Board of Directors...
Poklal Mahto Vs. Uma Shnkar Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1600
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment dated 20.3.1998 passed by the learned single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 466/93 (R) (Appeal from Original Order). The prayer of the appellant-claimant to enhance the compensation amount was accepted and it was enhanced from Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand only) to Rs. 50,'000/- (Fifty thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the award. 2. However, it appears that the appellant-claimant is not satisfied with such enhancement of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) together with 18% interest. So the present letters patent appeal has been preferred by him. 3. The case as is made out by the claimant is that the deceased, a boy was aged 15 years, was reading in Class-VIII. On 11.10.1990, at about 4.30 p.m. while the (deceased) boy was entering into the home after coming from the school, he was dashed by a Matador being Registration NO. BEY-2056 w...
Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Basmatia Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2017
ORDER1. Reference is invited to a Division Bench Judgment dated 30th January, 2002 passed in M.A. No. 57/2001. It is submitted that even though the vehicle in question did not carry with it any valid insurance as on the date of accident, the appellant has paid the amount under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 2. Based on the relevant observations made in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment dated 30th January, 2002 in M.A. No. 57/2001, while dismissing this appeal, we permit the appellant to raise all pleas before the Tribunal which are available to it relating to the validity or existence of insurance policy with respect to the vehicle in question. 3. Shri G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays that the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- as deposited by the appellant in this Court in terms ofthe provision in Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 be returned to the appellant because the appellant has already paid to the claimant the awarded amount of Rs. 50,000/-as per the ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC637; 2004ACJ118
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patent is directed against the judgment dated 5.5.1998 passed in M.A. No. 130 of 1995 (R), whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge, refused to set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 170/89.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation amount to be paid by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Insurance Company has taken a plea that as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the liability of the Insurance Company in the ordinary cases was fixed at Rs. 50,000/- only. It was further pointed out that the accident has taken place on 15th October, 1989, but Clause (2-A) of Section 147 of new Act, 1988 provides that ifthe accident takes place within 4 months of the coming into force of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »