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.
Subal Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR604(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr, Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General and Mrs. Subha Jha, learned counsel for the Intervenors.2. At the very outset, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned counsel for the Petitionersprayed that he may be allowed to implead the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as Respondent No. 6 in this case. Let him do so during the course of the day.3. These 41 (forty one) Writ Petitioners have prayed that a direction be passed upon the authorities to make payment of arrears of salary and that they be given all benefits in the period their services had been terminated till the date they were reinstated so that they have the status of continuity of service.4. Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned counsel for the Petitioners draws attention of this Court to Annexure 2 to the Writ Application and states that from a perusal thereof it would be apparent that details ha...
Chittranjan Sen Vs. National Coal Development Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR588(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is against the judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff filed tile suit No. 180/70 for declaration that the order of dismissal dated 13.12.1969 passed by the defendant is illegal, mala fide motivated and is a nullity.2. The plaintiff was appointed as a stowing mozdoor in the collieries of the respondent in 1968. The appellant was charge-sheeted by serving several charge-sheets. The Enquiry Committee so constituted submitted its report to the effect that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved and on that basis the appellant was dismissed from service.3. The trial Court, after recording a finding that the plaintiff was rightly held guilty of the charges and was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and the order of dismissal was not illegal or motivated, dismissed the suit.4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court the plaintiff preferred title appeal No. 18/80 which was finally dis...
Sarojini Kumari Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR606(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard all the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ for quashing her termination order. 2. The short question to be answered in this writ is whether because of noncompliance of the principle of natural justice this Court will interfere with the decision of the Managing Committee of a Minority School, by which the petitioner was terminated on the charges of unauthorized absence and for other charges. 3. The petitioner was a teacher in the school and she was proceeded departmentally for the charge as contained in Annexure-4. In the domestic enquiry an Advocate was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner prayed for appointment of an Advocate to defend her but this prayer was rejected by the contesting respondent i.e. Managements of the School on the ground that the petitioner has never filed any application before the Management for appointment of any advocate on her behalf to defend her case befor...
Shriram Agricultural Works Through Proprietor Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR20(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner in the instant case has made a prayer, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to release the linked quantity of coal, which according to it, has been illegally withheld on the ground that the Department of Industry has not sponsored the case of petitioner for release of coal.3. According to the petitioner it made an application for grant of linkage and by order dated 19.4.1999, a linkage order vide Annexure 2 was issued under the signature of the Chief General Manager, Coal IndiaLimited. According to the petitioner, the total assessment of capacity for the petitioner has been assessed as 630 Metric Ton per month and the petitioner was getting the coal pursuant to Annexure 2 as well as the aforementioned assessment but, subsequently, the said supply was stopped. Although, the petitioner had deposited the required money but i...
Bimal Kumar Bose Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR663(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazum-dar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The bone of contention in the instant case is that while on the one hand the petitioner asserts that his son-in-law namely Ashis Kumar Chowdhary is entitled to appointment on compassionate considerations, the respondents on the other, dispute the same and submit that he, not being a direct dependant, cannot be granted the said benefit as the Rule i.e. National Coal Wage Agreement specifically envisages that the dependent for purposes of the said Rule would mean the wife/husband as the case may be, or unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son and only when no such direct dependent is available then it would mean the younger brother, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in- law and son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employee. Reference may be made to the order dated 28.11.2002.3. Mr. R.S. Mazur...
Ambay Cements Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR309(Jhr)]
ORDER1. With the consent of the parties this application has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The only question involved in this case is as to whether the Temporary Registration Certificate for the proposed Small Scale Industry, granted by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Dhanbad to the petitioner on 5.5.2000 (Annexure-5) can be treated to be a prior permission of the State Government (Industries Department) as contemplated under the notification in question.2. Heard the parties. The petitioner has prayed inter alia for quashing the order dated 11.9.2002 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner's application for exemption from payment of Sales Tax on purchase of raw materials and on sale of finished products by the petitioner, has been rejected, and for other consequential reliefs.3. The case of the petitioner in short is that the State Government issued a n...
Director General of Mines and Safety and ors. Vs. D.L.F. Power Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR80(Jhr)]
1. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal, without formally admitting it.2. It appears that the respondent (M/s. DLF Power Ltd.) entered into an agreement with Coal India Ltd. for installation of Power Plants on the land leased to it by Coal India Ltd. The Power Plants were meant for supplying electrical power to the Mines run by two Subsidiary Companies of Coal India Ltd., namely, Central Coal Fields Ltd. (CCL) and Bharat Coking Ltd. (BCCL). On 4.1.1999 the respondent wrote a letter to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi seeking a clarification to the effect that the aforesaid power plants installed by the respondent would come within the definition of 'mine' as occurring in Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and thus being covered by the Mines Act, 1952 it be treated as a 'mine' and not a 'factory' with the definition of this expression as occurring in the Factories Act. The operativepart of...
Jyoti Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar48; [2003(2)JCR303(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing (i) Annexure-3, by which 'N' Box wagons loaded with iodised salt en route to Tatanagar were weighed behind the back of the petitioner, (ii) Annexure -4 by which payment of penal freight and detention charges was demanded from the petitioneragainst 19 'N' Box wagons, (iii) Annexure -7 by which payment was demanded as stated above with the threat to stop delivery of the next consignment, (iv) Annexure - 10 by which payment of railway dues wasdemanded and in default the seized consignments of iodised salt containing in two wagons to be put on public auction, (v)Annexure-11, the sale letter dated 2.9.2000, by which 1478 bags of iodised salt were tobe sold by public auction and (vi) Annexure- 14, a letter of the Senior DivisionalManager Commercial, South Eastern Railways, Chakradharpur Division, by which the petitioner was directed to pay the penalfreight, detention charge and wharfage charges and to command upon th...
State of Bihar Vs. Maheshwar Prasad Sao and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR627(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge. Hazaribagh in bunch of reference cases whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been allowed and the compensation has been increased. A writ petition being CWJC No. 2591/95 relates to the same matter which has been agitated by the appellants after impleading them as party respondents in the appeal.2. It appears that for the purpose of Patratu Thermal Power Station popularly known as PTPS, the Government acquired certain lands vide notification dated 2.4.1985 and the award was passed by the Collector under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Several claimants moved the Collector for reference as they were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector and consequently dispute was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge for determination. The Land Acquisition Judge after hearing the parties and after considering all the documents increase...
State of Bihar Vs. Laxman Sao
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR630(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh in 19 reference cases being Reference Case No. 27/86, 28/86, 29/86, 30/86, 31/86, 33/ 86, 34/86, 35/86, 36/86, 37/86, 38/86, 39/86, 40/86, 41/86, 42/86, 43/86, 44/ 86, 45/86, 46/86.2. By the impugned judgment the Land Acquisition Judge decided the reference made before him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in favour of the claimants and enhanced the compensation.3. It appears that the State Government acquired the land by virtue of notification issued in the year 1980 for the purpose of colliery operation of Seyal 'D' colliery and other purposes of the C.C. Ltd.4. The claimants moved application under Section 18 of the said Act for reference and accordingly all the applications were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. The case of the claimants/respondents is that the land acquired was for the purpose of colliery operation and other purposes and it is situated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »