Jharkhand Court August 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.
Gajadhar Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR651(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ application the writ petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for quashing the 'Basgit Parchas' issued by the respondent No. 5 (Circle Officer, Ganwa, P.O. & P.S.--Ganwa, District - Giridih) in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 13 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under the provisions of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as an Act). According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are neither privileged persons nor privileged tenants within the meaning of the Act in relation to the Raiyati land belonging to the petitioners nor are they predecessors in Interest in any manner what so ever. The Basgit Parchas have been appended as Annexure-3 series in the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from taking possession of the land in question or from disturbing the possession of the petitioners in relation to the aforementioned lands,2...
Bihar Mica Exporters Association Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ1107Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellant-Bihar Mica Exporters Association being not satisfied with the order dated 1st September, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2837 of 2000 (R), have preferred this appeal.2. The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by the appellant against notification dated 12th June, 2000 issued under the orders of the Governor of Bihar alleging, inter alia, that the minimum wages fixed by the said notification is against the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, particularly, Sections 3 and 5 thereof and should not have been issued from retrospective effect.3. The learned single Judge taking into consideration the meagre revision of wages of workman from Rs. 39.70 to 53.80, as it having due regard to the average of All India Consumer Price Index Number, dismissed the writ petition, the Minimum Wages Act being a benevolent Act.4. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :(i) The wages cannot be revised from ret...
Bihar State Financial Corporation and ors. Vs. Santu Lal Gupta and anr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar44
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna ('BSFC' for short) against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2000, passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2170 of 1998 (R).Learned single Judge by the impugned judgment has set aside the order dated 20th February, 1998, subject to the condition that the petitioner respondent No. 1 Santu Lal Gupta deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) within four weeks from the date of judgment, with a further direction to the appellant BSFC to serve a detailed calculation of the amount after such deposit. Regarding the rest amount, if ultimately found due, the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the same within six months from the date of service of calculation.2. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment and order mainly on the ground that it was based on erroneous ground, without taking into consideration the sale notice, published in the...
P.K. Press Metal (P) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1205]; (2003)ILLJ801Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the appeals having been preferred by common appellant and as arises out of proceedings under the 'Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952' (Act 1952 for short), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By judgment dated 31st July, 2000 in CWJC No. 3358/92 (R), learned single Judge affirmed the order dated 20th July, 1992 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur, held that the establishment of petitioner-appellant is not entitled to get exemption under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act, 1952 and the appellant cannot exonerate himself from the liability under the Act, 1952. This decision is under challenge in LPA No. 352/ 2000. By another order dated 7th June, 2001 passed in CWJC No. 549/98 (R), another single Judge refused to entertain the writ petition against the penal order dated 17th November, 1997 passed under Section 14-B of the Act. 1952, there being alternative remedy of statu...
United Collieries Ltd. Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR225(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9th September, 1998 passed in First Appeal No. 151 of 1986 (R) whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge has been affirmed.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. The plaintiff/appellant M/s. United Collieries Limited was the erstwhile owner Central Sounda Colliery and was dealing in coal business and in course of such business certain amount of coal was supplied to the defendant Northern Railway prior to 31.1.1973. Against such supply of coal, six separate bills having total amount of Rs. 1,97,887.30 were drawn up in the month of January, 1973 and the balance of Rs. 1,77,210.30 paise remained outstanding. The plaintiffs case was that the Central Sounda Colliery was taken over under the provisions of Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Ordinance 1973 on 31.1.1973. Thereafter,...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar1; 2003(51)BLJR155
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the Judgment dated 18-8-98 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 1888 of 1990R whereby it was held that the appellant shall be entitled to reduction of contract demand from 12000 KVA to 900 KVA with effect from June, 1991 instead of giving direction for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA with effect from December, 1988.2. The appellant, who is a High Tension Consumer, entered into an agreement in 1974 with the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board for supply of electricity on the maximum demand of 12000 KVA. It was alleged that the supply of electrical energy by the Board was deteriorated giving rise to serious disruption in the production and in order to keep its production intact, the appellant sought permission of the Board under Section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short Act of 1948) for installation of generating sets in the premises. The Board granted permission to set up own generating...
Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricit ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR2177
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner, M/s. Menally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to raise separate bills on the basis of High Tension Tariff (H.T. for short) for its factory premises and on the basis of Commercial Service Tariff (C.S. for short) for its administrative premises and on the basis of Domestic Service Tariff (D.S. for short) for its 150 residential houses/ staff quarters, since despite repeated request to raise separate bills, a common bill on the basis of H.T. Tariff is being raised for its factory premises, administrative buildings and residential houses/staff quarters which, according to petitioner, is against the provisions of the Tariff. 2. The case of petitioner is that it entered into an agreement for supply of load at H.T. for a contract demand of 1000 KVA and its consumer number is K.D. 5. The electrical line is supplied t...
JasmIn B. Shah (A) Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC327; 2003CriLJ621
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. The petitioner filed this application praying therein to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 50 of 2001 which was registered under Sections 406/420, IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. The prosecution case as alleged is that the complainant is the broker of Indo Shares & Pin Trade Ltd., Mumbai who is the member of Mumbai Stock Exchange and he was dealing in shares on line trading of shares by the G. Set (Computer Bolt) provided by Mumbai Stock Exchange after depositing the security with the accused company. Due to some reasons membership of accused company was terminated by the Stock Exchange which compelled the complainant to file a claim of Rs. 5,56,555.70 before the Arbitration Committee Stock Exchange, Mumbai being Ref. No. 105 of 2000. A compromise was arrived at in between the parties and the accused Company agreed to settle the matter on payment of total sum of Rs. 4,58,894.07 ps. The ac...
JasmIn B. Shah (B) Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC331; 2002(50)BLJR1891; 2003CriLJ620
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 7.7.2001, whereby and where-under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The prosecution case as alleged is that the complainant is the broker of Indo Shares and Pin Trade Ltd., Mumbai who is the member of Mumbai Stock Exchange and he was dealing in shares on line trading of shares by the G. Set (Computer Bolt) provided by Mumbai Stock Exchange after depositing the security with the accused company. It is further alleged that due to some reasons membership of accused company was terminated by the Stock Exchange which compelled the complainant to file a claim of Rs. 5,56,555.70 before the Arbitration Committee Stock Exchange, Mumbai being Ref. No. 105 of 2000. A compromise was arrived at in between the parties...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pramila Jha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR263(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Mr. Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only two points in support of his appeal; firstly that the liability of the appellant being statutory was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- and, therefore, the appellant should not have been burdened by any higher liability to pay the awarded amount and secondly, that the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident did not have any valid driving licence.2. In so far as the second ground is concerned, this has not at all been raised in the memo of appeal. In so far as the first ground is concerned, that was indeed raised as Ground No. (x) which reads thus :--'(x) For that the statutory liability to pay compensation is to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the appellant and therefore, when the appellant has been ordered to pay compensation with interest on Rs. 2,88,028,80 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.'3. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid averments are vague and evasive, what we find is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »