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.
Awash Through Its Proprietor Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR192(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant is a developer and promoter of the house-buildings and is engaged in constructing residential and commercial housing complex. In exercise of power under Rule 40 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur, vide letter dated 16.8.2000, directed the appellant to produce necessary papers, including, transportation challan, failing which total amount of royalty and penalty calculated inthe said letter would be realised by certificate proceeding.2. Against the said order, appellant moved this Court in CWJC No. 3364 of 2000 (R). The respondents filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, therein that the appellant while making construction of building illegally transported the minor minerals and consumed the same for which the State was put in loss and therefore, the respondent demanded the transport challans only to verify as to whether the materials used in the constructions, royalty has been paid or not.4. The writ applica...
Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., Etc. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner ( ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR587]; [2003(2)JCR26(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ818Jhar
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) in P.G. Appeal No. 29/99 by which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the order of the Controlling Authority passed on 28.4.1999 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5020.00 (Rupees five thousand twenty only) together with ten percent simple interest.2. The petitioner further prays for quashing the notice dated 9/10.3.2000 (Annexure 7) by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi-cum-Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay the aforementioned amount within thirty days.3. According to the petitioner, the order of the appellate authority is not only contrary to the order of the original fact finding Court (the Industrial Tribunal) which justified the dismissal of the...
Vrigue Nandan Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR60(Jhr)]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Petitioner Vrigue Nan-dan Jha has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2002, passed by Sri B. Pratap, learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, in PCR Case No. 209 of 2002/Tr. No. 930 of 2002, whereby, he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 144, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and eleven others.2. Opposite Party No. 2 Bachu Prasad Singh has alleged that this petitioner along with eleven others, named in the First Information Report, harvested the paddy crops, standing over Jamabandi No. 36 and took away the same.3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final form, stating therein, that no offence is made out against the accused persons. On 4th December 2001 a protest petition was filed by the said Bachu Prasad Singh (Opposite Party No. 2) whereupon the learned Court belowheard the informant/complainant as also considered the witnesses, produced in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Cr...
Manoranjan Tewari Vs. Bokaro Steel Employee's (OPM Mills Zones) Co-ope ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR143(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken up for consideration.2. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that respondent No. 1 is not an Authority covered by Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor an Instrumentality of the State, and therefore, according to Mr. Tiwari the dismissal of the writ application on that ground (as being not maintainable) was not proper. Mr. Tiwari has relied upon a recent Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institution of Chemical Biology and Ors., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111.3. After hearing Mr. Tiwari's detailed arguments, we find ourselves unable to agree with the point of view that respondent No. 1 is an Authority covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Even in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (Supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Vs. Turki Kui and ors. Etc.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC437; [2003(2)JCR412(Jhr)]
ORDER1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of all these appeals together.2. Three appeals being M.A. Nos. 548 and 549 of 1993 (R) and 140 of 1994 (R) have been filed by the owner of the truck in question and the other three appeals (M.A. Nos. 257 of 1192 (R), 134 and 135 of 1993 (R) have been filed by the Insurance Company. The accident in question occurred on 29th May, 1984 in which some persons died and some received injuries. All the deceased persons or the injured persons were travelling as passengers in the truck bearing registration No. BRS 2851. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident (29th May, 1984), the law applicable was the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On some reasoning the Tribunal held in three cases the owner responsible to pay the compensation amount. In other three cases, the Tribunal held the insurance Company responsible and liable to indemnify the owner and hence to pay the awarded amount. Of course, it is undisputed that the truck in question was insure...
Rajendra Prasad Burnwal and ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR376(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers-(i) For quashing the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as contained Annexure 3; (ii) For quashing the certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 2/Elect. of 2000-01, Annexure 5, for realization of the energy dues against the Consumer No. ISI-00280 for the period 2/95 to 7/95 on the grounds that (i) though the power connection was disconnected as back as in 7/95. yet without submitting any fresh demand, the bill was raised in the year 2000 even for the period of 7/97, Annexure 3/2, because in Annexure 3/2 itself the line disconnected has been shown by the respondents to be as 8/95; (ii) the demand is time barred by limitation and (iii) as there is a contractual liability of paying the bills between the consumer who enters into an agreement with the Board, no such liability can be fastened with the other members of the fam...
Secretary to the Government Ministry of Home Affairs and anr. Vs. Vice ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR289(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Hem Chand, respondent No. 2, a member of Indian Police Service of West Bengal Cadre was posted as Executive Director (Vigilance) under Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. On certain charges, he was suspended and order of his suspension was passed on 19.9.1992 (Annexure 1) by the Director, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, in contemplation of departmental proceeding against him. Respondent No. 2 challenged order of suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide Original Application No. 487 of 1992, which was dismissed for default on 11.12.1992 and SLP No. 1557 of 1994 filed in the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 21.1.1994. In the meantime on 9.3.1994, enquiry officer was appointed and subsequently on 10.10.1994 another person was replaced as enquiry officer and the preliminary hearing was held. Respondent No. 2 did not participate in the said enquiry.2. It appears that respondent No. 2 filed O.A. No. 1052 of 1994 before the Principal Bench, Central Administ...
Smt. Shyama Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR49(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.The basic question to be answered in this case is whether in the event of fixation of pay by competent authorities and subsequent detection by a lower authority that the fixation was erroneous the pay so given to the petitioner without her misrepresentation can be recovered.2. The question aforesaid arose out of the following facts :3. The petitioner claims to be appointed as a Teacher and subsequently her pay was fixed in Matric trained scale of Rs. 280-340 with effect from 1.11.1976 then w.e.J. 4.1.1988 she was given first time bound promotion after completion of tenyears of service and consequently, her scale was fixed again. The petitioner's pay was revised in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 6-022 dated 18.12.89 of the Finance Department. Her revised pay was again fixed after completion of twelve years on 9.7.87. In the year 1995, the Government of Bihar issued a Notification regarding computing the period of serv...
Sanjay Lodha and Raj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar64; [2003(1)JCR641(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the cases, as common question of law involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner, Sanjay Lodha of WP (C) No. 514 of 2002 has challenged the seizure made on 2nd January, 2002 and Confiscation Proceeding No. 3 of 2002 Initiated against him, 362 bags of chiraunji containing 27,150 Kilograms having seized from the godown of said petitioner.The other petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar Mishra of WP (C) No. 532 of 2002 has challenged the seizure made on 31st December, 2001, as also the confiscation proceeding No. 2 of 2002 initiated against him in which notice issued on 2nd January, 2002 on the ground of seizure of 1,145 bags of chiraunji containing 80,150 Kilograms and 70 bags of gond containing 4,900 Kilograms.3. The main plea taken by the petitioners is that chiraunji or the gond are not forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 (Bihar Act ...
Birsai Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR2(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned SC-I for the respondents. 2. Pursuant to the order this Court passed on 7.1.2003, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Ranchi is present in Court alongwith the Treasury Officer, Gumla. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwari has submitted that he has joined Ranchi only in September, 2002 but the moment he came to know about this matter he immediately took action. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that from a perusal of the show cause filed by the Treasury Officer, Gumla it would be apparent that the amounts due to the petitioner have now been calculated towards arrears of pension and that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards gratuity after adjusting provisional payments made by the department has been found payable. 4. This Court appreciates the swift action initiated by the present Deputy Commissioner but does not appreciate the lethargy shown by ot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »