Jharkhand Court January 2003 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.
Abdul Sattar Ansari Vs. Aziz Ansari and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR590(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has filed counter affidavit.2. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 18.11.2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 57/2002 whereby he has set aside the order dated 30.8.2000 passed by Munsif Bokaro at Chas in title suit No. 88/97 and has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, CPC.3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondent, being a displaced person was given employment by Bokaro Steel Ltd. His case is that he was allotted a piece of land measuring an area of 10 decimals comprised within plot Nos. 1101, 1099 and 1100. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 was also allotted 12 decimals of adjacent land but he was in illegal possession of the same. Plaintiffs further case is that since defendant No. 1 was trying to encroach upon the land so allotte...
Bokaro Steel Mines College Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR654(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. At the outset when the case was called out, Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Secretary, Department of Higher Education be allowed to be impleaded as respondent No. 5. Let him do so during the course of the day.2. Heard Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.3. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for issuance of a writ of man-damus commanding upon the respondents to grant affiliation to the petitioner institution as according to the petitioner, all fees etc. have been paid, inquiry by the Inspector of Colleges is complete.4. In the instant case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 through its Registrar and at paragraph 9, it has inter alia been contended that the college in question was first inspected on 29.6.1985 for affiliation in B.A. and B.Com up to the pass standard. The Committee recommended gra...
Balu Fire Clay Mines Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR272]; [2003(1)JCR664(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ672Jhar
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This writ has been filed for quashing Annexure 3 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter the Act), whereby and where under the review petition of the partitioned to review the order as contained in Annexure 1 has been rejected. Annexure 1 has also been sought to be quashed on the ground that this has been passed on erroneous appreciation of the documents of the petitioner particularly the Exhibits E/5 and E/6.3. The short case of the petitioner is that the petitioner ran a business in the name and style of M/s. Balu Fireclay Mines at Balumath, Palamau through Sri K.C. Garg. According to the petitioner his business came to a closure because of certain Nexal activities going on within area and consequently information thereof had been given to the authorities concerned. Then the authorities under the Act passed the order Annexure 1 and in that proceeding ...
Shyama Prasad College Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR575; [2003(2)JCR550(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner, Shyama Prasad College, Tatanagar was established in 1985 and was granted affiliation in respect to one or other subject since the sessions 1985-88, as detailed below :--PassCourseAffiliationletter No. and dateSessionsfor which affiliation grantedSubjectsb.a./b.sc./B.Com. Pass15/A-100ThreeSessionsArts:EnglishBengali,Education Bihar Governmentfrom85-86 85-86HindiEconomicsHistoryPhylos ophyEducation86-87HomeSciencePol.Department87-88ScienceSanskritMathematicsSatistics, MIL(Hindi& Bengali) SciencePhysicsChemistryZoology,BotonyMaths CommerceAll OompulsorySubjects. 15 AI-018/86MaNaTwoSessionsAll SubjectsPreviously BiFrom 1988-89MemoNo. 86588-89 Dated11.08.8989-90 15-A 1-018/86OuShi1990-91to 1994-95All subjectspreviouslyMemoNo. 364affiliated. Dated 11.06.94Sessions 15 A1-081/86 Ou ShiThreeSessionsAll subjectspreviouslyMemoNo. 752From 1995-96affiliated Dated 30.12.9695-96 96-97 97-98 Hons.level Course Affiliationletter no andSessionsfor which Subje...
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Automobile Ancillary In ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR578(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As we are going to pass an agreed order, it is not necessary to go into the details of the rival claims of the parties. From the inspection report dated 26th August, 1999, it is clear that so far as the industrial load is concerned, the same was within the sanctioned load i.e. 77.5 HP, the sanctioned load being 79 HP. So far as the load on account of lighting and fans in the industries, which comes to 9 KW = 12 HP is concerned, the same has been separately mentioned in the inspection report. Thus, it is clear that the Board is entitled to charge the respondent on the commercial tariff so far as the load to the extent of 9 KW with respect to lighting and fans is concerned, Mr. Mittal has stated at the Bar that he has made an application on 24.10.2002 with requisite fees for grant of separate commercial connection of 12 KW for lighting purposes in the industries of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances with the consent of the pa...
Misbahun Nisa Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR477
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and J.C. to S.C. 1. 2. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner in the instant case is that notwithstanding the existence of Circulars making sixty years as the age of superannuation of the teachers like the Petitioner, the Respondents have passed an order on 28-12-1997 (Annexure-2/1) by which the petitioner has been directed that on her having reached the age of 58 (fifty eight) years, she will be superannuate on 31-12-1997.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further made a grievance that on the basis of the aforesaid illegal letter, the Petitioner was forced to retire on 31-12-1997 by misquoting a Circular although from a perusal of Annexure-1 and Annexure-3 it appears that the date of superannuation has been accepted to be 60 (sixty) years in the case of persons/teachers such as the Petitioner.4. In the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner retired on 31-12-1997 following the letter of the ...
State of Bihar Vs. Mithu Kewat and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR631(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and Award passed by the Land AcquisitionJudge, Bokaro at Chas whereby he has disposed of 30 reference cases filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. 2. It appears that notification for acquisition of 92.67 acres of land in Mouza Dugda and Dursera village within Dugada P.S. was issued on 16.6.1981 and subsequently awards were made under different awards and communicated to the claimants. The claimants received awarded compensation under protest and preferred application under Section 19 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimants is that the land acquired for the Dugda Coal Washery are not properly classified and no compensation according to market value of the land has been paid to them. According to the claimants, acquired lands are paddy lands and are fit to be used for residential, industrial and other commercial purposes. There are sever...
State of Bihar Vs. Haradhan Choudhary
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR633(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since these appeals arose out of the common Judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in bunch of reference cases the same are heard and disposed of by this common order.2. It appears that some time in the year 1985 by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act about 3.78.39 acres of land of different classification situated in Mouza Relgaria P.S. Baliapur District Dhanbad was acquired by the State of Bihar for colliery purpose. After notification declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 12.6.1985. The delivery of possession of the land was taken by the concerned authority on 30.10.1987 and 31.10.1987. After the said acquisition, the award was prepared by the Collector and dissatisfied with the award claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. This is how all these reference cases came before the Land Acquisition Judge.3. The Land Acquisition Judge (in short Court below) formulated two points for co...
Sabitri Devi Vs. Bijay Kumar Yadav and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC47; [2003(2)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Limitation in filing this revision application is condoned.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party- Insurance Company.3. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the District Judge. Dumka is correct in law in holding that Misc. Case No. 10/2001 filed under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of Title Claim Suit No. 28/92 is not maintainable.4. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.5. The claimant/petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The suit was fixed for hearing on 24.5.2001, as it appears from the order-sheet. The claimant/ petitioner filed attendance of one witness but when the case was called out; neither the claimant nor his counsel appeared in court. The witness whose Haziri was filed disclosed himself to be the son of the claimant, but on quarry it was found that he ...
Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR587(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Vide order passed on 18th September 2001 by Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur the appellant--writ petitioner was dismissed from service. It is the admitted case of the parties that as on the date of the passing of the aforesaid order (18.9.2001) the appellant-petitioner was serving in Bokaro. In terms of Section 74 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and in view of the authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Ors., reported in (2002) (1) JLJR 697 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhr), with respect to the officials serving in the territories now forming the State of Jharkhand, the competent authority to impose any penalty would be Government of Jharkhand or the officers of Jharkhand and not the Government of Bihar or the officers of Bihar State even if the subject matter of the charge-sheet relates to a period of time prior to 15th November, 2000. On the ground alone, and no other ground the impugned order pass...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »