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.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rahim Ansari and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC365; [2003(1)JCR622(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The only point involved in this case is with respect to the liability of the Insurance Company- Appellant to pay the award amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file and find that the appellant-Insurance Company had in clear and categorical term informed the Tribunal that in the absence of policy particulars it was not in a position to admit or deny the factum of insurance. In the absence of such stand of the appellant it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have compelled the owner of the vehicle to furnish the policy particulars so that the appellant could have admitted or denied the factum of insurance. The Tribunal did not do so. The owner did not furnish the policy particulars. An Insurance Company, merely by the fact of its impleadment as a respondent in a claim petition can not be fastened with the liability of satisfying the award because the sine quo non of the liability of an insurer to pay...
Shanti Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC408; [2003(2)JCR71(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner against the decision dated 18th November, 2002 whereby it was decided to purchase cements for the work in question from respondent No. 5--Larson and Turbo Limited (L & T) and Respondent No. 6. Orissa Cement Limited.2. According to petitioner. It is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its factory at N.S. 53 VI Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and Office at 9, Asiana Trade Centre, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. It is a small scale industry which manufactures cement.In pursuance of tender notice No. 12/Pur-012/2002-04/Ranchi dated 12th September, 2002, petitioner as also respondent Nos. 5, 6 and others submitted tender for supply of cement. The following terms and conditions were mentioned :(I) Quality must confirm to ISI standard. (II) Tender for supply of OPC-33 (IS 269 : 1989) OPC-43 (IS 8112 : 1989) and Portland slag cement (IS 455 : 1989). (III) Income tax and sales taxclearance certifica...
Jagdish Mehta Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR525(Jhr)]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 1.4.2002 passed by the learned CJM Koderma in G. Case No. 185/2000, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 33, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. In this criminal miscellaneous petition notices were issued upon OP Nos. 2 & 3, who were served notices personally but they did not appear. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has got no instruction in this regard. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.12.2000. The allegation against this petitioner is that he had loaded over the truck, bearing Registration No. D15-7576 about 300 Sq. Ft. of stone valued at Rs. 600/- for which fine was assessed to Rs. 3,000/-. 5. In this present case after submission of the prosecution report the learned Court below has taken cognizance. The le...
Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs. Hon'ble Chancellor of Universities and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1134; [2003(4)JCR110(Jhr)]
V.K. Gupta, C.J. and R.K. Merathia, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is as to whether Section 9 (7)(ii) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') can be construed/read to mean that under the powers vested in the Chancellor to issue direction to the Universities in the Administrative or Academic interest of the Universities which he considers to be necessary, such directions can be issued which may adversely or prejudicially affect or tend to adversely affect the rights or interests of third parties, and further as to whether the Universities will be bound to implement such directions2. The relevant facts in short are as follows :The petitioner (appellant) filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being C.W. J.C. No. 822/2000 mainly for quashing the order of his termination from the post of computer operator in Ranchi University issued vide Memo No. Esst/ C/252-62 dated 10-3-2000 under the signatures of the Re...
Ganesh Prasad Tiwari Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR25(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The contention of the petitioner in this writ is that the management has not granted him promotion to Grade C, thoughthe petitioner has been working in the department.3. The career graph of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver in category V on 23.3.1982 then he was upgraded to grade VI on 1.7.1992, though he became eligible for that post after completion of 8 years of experience. The further case of the petitioner is that subsequently, in the year 1992 vide Annexure-8, the post of the petitioner was upgraded to category-VI. Therefore, according to the petitioner if the post was upgraded to category VI with effect from 1.7.1992 then as per the promotion policy as contained in Annexure-A, he should have been promoted to Grade C after completion of 7 years of experience with effect from 1.7.1992.4. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner could not be granted t...
Dwarika Sonar and ors. Vs. Most Bilguli and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR134(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants. The appeal is against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit land and also for declaration that the revisional survey entry of the name of defendant no 1 in respect of the suit land is wrong and erroneous. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif, Koderma being title suit No. 27/84 holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.2. The appellate court reversed the judgment in Title appeal. No. 42/88, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit.3. Plaintiff's case is that he is the settled raiyait of village Jainagar having ancestral land and house. The suit land under khata No. 222 stands in the name of Guli Sonar and Meghan Sonar, father and uncle of the plaintiff which was duly recorded in the cadastral survey record of rights. The recorded tenant, Meghan Sonar died issueless and the entire property ofkhata No. 222 devolved upon his...
Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad Vs. Ram Janam Sharma
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR478; [2003(2)JCR19(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1989 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 12/1986-87 whereby he has refused to grant probate of the will and dismissed the suit.2. The appellant in the court below filed an application for grant of probate in respect of a will alleged to have been executed by late Kapildeo Prasad in his favour. Appellant's case is that late Kapildeo Prasad son of late Sarju Prasad was an employee of M/s. Telco Company Limited, Jamshedpur. He died issueless in Telco hospital on 23.9.1985. He had got a fixed deposit account and also saving account in Punjab National Bank, Bistupur. Appellant's further case is that late Kapildeo Prasadexecuted a will in his favour in respect ofthe entire amount lying in the fixed depositand the Savings Account.3. The respondent, contested the claim of the appellant and consequently, the probate case was converted into a title suit. Respondent's case is...
Management of Delhi Public School Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR152(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The award of the Labour court, Annexure-5, which is impugned in this writ petition, has been assailed by the petitioner-D.P.S. School, on the grounds that : (i) as the petitioner school is an educational institution, the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to it, (ii) the respondent No. 2 had been employed under a contract, Annexure-4, and with the termination of the contract, the service of the respondent-workman came to an end and therefore, the termination does not amount to retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently Section 25F of the Act is not applicable and (iii) the respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days continuously and therefore, the question of applicability of Section 25FF did not arise.3. Preliminarily, it was also canvassed on behalf of the petitioner earlier that the proceeding was quashed in CWJC No. 1322/1994R and therefore, this proceeding and the award are also bad...
ispat Nagari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR768; [2003(2)JCR520(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Petitioner Ispat Nagari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., is a Co-operative Society registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the order dated 19th August, 2002 passed in Supersession Case No. 136 of 2000 (corresponding to Super-session Case No. 49 of 2001) by respondent No. 2 whereby the Managing Committee of the petitioner co-operative society has been superseded/dissolved and the SDO, Jamshedpur has been appointed as an Administrator of the Society in terms of Section 41(3) of the Act. 2. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents drew our attention to Sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and submitted that any order passed by the Registrar under Sub-section( 1) of Section 41 of the Act is appealable and that the appeal lies to the State Government. Undoubtedly, the order challeng...
Rajendra Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Gulam Rasool and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR470; [2003(1)JCR534(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal by the defendant No. 1 to 3 is directed against thejudgment and order dated 25.4.1996 passed by Sub Judge II Lohardaga in Miscellaneous Case No. 8/95 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13. CPC and refused to set aside the ex parte decree passed in title suit No. 15/92.2. The plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the aforementioned suit against the appellants and defendant- respondent No. 3 for a decree of specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed on context against respondent No. 3 and ex parte against the appellants.3. The appellants thereafter filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the decree which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 8/95. The case of the petitioners-appellants was that no summon or notice of the suit was ever served on them and they have no notice or knowledge about the ex parte decree. It was contended on behalf of the said defendant-pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »