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.
Sheikh Sohrab Vs. Md. Kasim Ansari and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR450(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner was employed and posted as Senior Clerk in Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'). One K.L. Chowdhury was also working there as Senior Clerk and was senior to the petitioner.2. One Sudarsan Ram, who was senior to K.L. Chowdhury along with R.K. Upad-hyay, N. Topno (Scheduled Tribe) and Md. Mobarak, who were junior to K.L. Chowdhury were promoted to the next higher post of Assistant by upgradation with effect from 6.11.1998. Later on the petitioner as well as one B.K.Rajak (Scheduled Caste) were also promoted to the post of Assistant with.effect from 28.11.1998.3. By office order dated 1.12.1998, Issued by the Administrative Officer of the Institute, K.L. Chowdhury was communicated the reason for which the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend his case for promotion/up-gradation from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Assistant. By communication he was also wanted and was directed to i...
Kali Pada Dutta and ors., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR479; [2003(2)JCR3(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides.2. All these writs are taken together as common questions are involved in these writs and are being disposed of by a common order at the stage of admission itself.3. The first question to be answered in these writs is whether if the petitioners, who were appointed in the year 1982-83 and were given time bound promotion, subsequently on detection that this time bound promotion scale was given wrongly can there be order of recovery of excess withdrawal? The second question whether the time bound promotion given to the petitioners was, in fact, contrary to the provisions of the Government circular?4. The questions aforesaid arose out of the facts that in all the writs the petitioners were appointed on the basis of the advertisement issued in the daily newspaper on 31.3.1981 for appointment of Assistant teachers. Consequently, all the thirteen petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2395 of 2001 were appointed as Assistant teachers with effect from differ...
Sakaldeo Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR578; [2003(2)JCR348(Jhr)]
ORDERDeoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2002, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for examination of a witness in connection with Sessions Trial No. 70/2000 arising out of G.R No. 624 of 1998 registered under Sections 324, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Explosives Substance Act. 2. Short fact of the case as alleged that one Vishwanath Singh while returning from the call of nature the accused Devendra Singh alongwith other accused persons came there and Devendra Singh threw a bomb on him. The Informant raised halla. Vishwanath Singh sustained injury due to explosion of the bomb. In the meantime, accused persons fled away. Later on the injured died due to said injuries. 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. Prosecution examined the witnesses and after closing of the prosec...
Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nanda Dubey and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR327(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Admittedly, during period from January 1992 to August 1997 the appellant paid some excess amount to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who were employed on different posts in Sindri Unit of the Fertilizer Corporation of India, in different months, in addition to their monthly salary through the payment slips. The appellant-corporation decided to recover the excess amount paid to them, during the aforesaid period together with interest @ 17% per annum with effect from the date of withdrawal of the excess amount. Those employees-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed separate applications before the General Manager to request the management to exempt them from recovering the interest element.2. The Deputy General Manager (Finance) on 31.3.1998 made following notes on the said request 'Request can be considered if all of them deposit fifty percent of the amount lump sum immediately'. According to respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the said direction dated 31.3.1998 was not communicated to them. However, it w...
Ashutosh Industries Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR655(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 11.12.2002. The intention of the order was not to be told the technicalities or the jargon of the term 'MPQ'. The intention was that the BCCL should indicate as to how much coal is in a position to supply considering the fact that the petitioner had just taken its birth in the year 2000, It is nobody's case that this petitioner is fake or not a genuine entrepreneur. So many factors will have to be taken into consideration and one cannot lose sight of the economy of the new State of the Jharkhand. If an entrepreneur is forced to wind up within the archives of the definition of the word 'MPQ' or such other definition which are consigned or framed by the coal company, then the very purpose for which the coal companies have been formed and the very purposes for which an entrepreneur takes linkage...
Basanteshwari Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3809; [2003(1)JCR566(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This miscellaneous petition has been directed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.2.2002 passed by Shri U.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 2978 of 1998 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 658 of 1998 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him in this case has been partly rejected and he was directed to appear in person for framing of the charge against him only under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A petition of complaint giving rise to complaint case No. 660 of 1998 was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ranchi by opposite party No. 2, Chandrakant Gopalka on 8.12.1998 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 18.8.1998 and continuing since then and the learnedC.J.M. was pleased to direct the O.C., Kotwali P.S. to institute a case, investigate a...
Special Smokeless Fuel Manufacturers Association and ors. Vs. Chairman ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR601(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents on the interlocutory application No. 2020/2002 filed by one of the petitioners, namely. Special Smokeless Fuel Manufacturers for modification of the judgment and order dated 28.11.97 and allowing the petitioner to lift coal from the selected Dhori colliery, Dhori area. 2. Petitioner's case is that it has linkage of 5000 MT of coal per month but the respondents are supplying coal to the petitioner from the collieries where the coal is not of good quality having more than 50% wastage and the transportation cost is also very high. It is contended that the respondents are supplying coal to some of the SSF plant from their chosen collieries but in the case of the petitioner they are discriminating. According to the petitioner earlier the respondents were ready to release coal from the selected Dhori collieries and for that the petitioner-unit set up infr...
Bholotia Auto Products and Sunrise Ingot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Ele ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR609(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in these writ application is whether the new tariff issued by the respondent-Board under letter No. 1633 dated 24-9-1999 is applicable to the consumers including the petitioners who have Induction Furnace unit used for casting work of refractories item and manufacturing automobile components. 2. Initially the petitioner had challenged the tariff in question on various grounds including that it was issued without making any notification in the official gazette and without taking concurrence of the State Government but now the petitioners challenge the tariff only on the ground that it is not applicable to the petitioner-unit which are having Induction Furnace manufacturing only automobile components. 3. The petitioners units are engaged in casting of automobile components for supply to M/S Telco. Ltd and other automobile industries. It is stated that the petitioners are not a steel manufacturer and they do not make any pen...
Nicco Jubilee Park Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR536(Jhr)]
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : '(a) For a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay entertainment tax under the provisions of Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder inter alia on the following grounds : (i) The State Government has not issued any notification levying taxes on amusement parks in exercise of its power under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948 as substituted vide Act 3 of 1977. (ii) The petitioner is not liable to pay entertainment tax in view of the notification issued under Section 10(2) of Entertainment Tax Act, 1948 exempting the payment of entertainment tax on sports. (iii) The petitioner is not liable to pay entertainment tax in view of Section 10(1)(b) and (c) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948 as the entertainment provided for in the amusement park of the petitioner is mainly educational and scientific sp...
Mogal Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR347(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Badal Vishal, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General, Jharkhand.2. The writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained at Annexure 8, by reason whereof it was inter alia informed that the date of birth of Mogal Shah was 22.3.1942 and therefore, he would be superannuating with effect from 31.3.2000. The aforementioned order was passed on 12.12.2000. By reason of the impugned order it was further intimated that the date of birth; i.e. 22.3.1942 had been established on the basis of a memo dated 11.12.2000 issued by the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Nagrik Anchal, Ranchi.3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 10.1.1968 and in the Service Roll which was opened on 24.1.1969, his date of birth had been recorded as 22.3.1948 vide Annexure 1 to the Writ Application. Consequently, according to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »