Jharkhand Court December 2003 Judgments
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR476(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard senior counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the intervener and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.2. This claimed public interest litigation seeks to open a new front. It Is some sort of a qula timet action since what is asserted on behalf of the petitioner is that he was trying to prevent a wrong that he genuinely apprehends would affect public interest. The petitioner challenges a notice inviting tenders issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of School Welfare, Women and Child Development. It is as part of a supplementary nutrition programme and the work tendered for is the supply of 'Ready to Eat Energy Food (Poshahaar)' for the integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) projects in the State of Jharkhand. What is complained of is that the tender notification lacks clarity, prescribes qualifications which are unscientific and unnatural; that it is discriminatory and that it is just and proper to direct rectifica...
Tag this Judgment!Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR437(Jhr)]
P.K Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Petitioner, the Central Coalfields Limited, has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-18 communication issued by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Ranchi, in respect of the clearance of excisable goods from the Central Repair Shop of the petitioner located at Barkakana in the district of Hazaribagh. By that communication, dated 6.6.2003, the petitioner was informed that the exemption under Notification No. 63/95 CE dated 16.3.1995, was not available to the goods manufactured in the concerned workshop, since the concerned workshop was a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948. It is seen that the petitionen was issued a show cause cum demand notice dated 8.4.2003, informing the petitioner that the manufactured articles were dutiable under the Excise Act, 1944 and the petitioner has submitted a reply dated 3.6.2003, to that notice. It is common case that the adjudication p...
Tag this Judgment!Employers in Relation to the Management of Bhuli Town Administration o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR360(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner who is the management of Bhuli Town Administration of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has challenged the award dated 29.12.1997 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in reference case No. 165 of 1993.2. The Central Government vide its order dated 14.9.1993 referred the following dispute to the tribunal for adjudication. 'Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhavan, Dhanbad in not giving employment to S/Shri Anil Kumar and 90 others is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are en-' titled?'3. The case of the concerned workmen is that there is township of M/s. BCCL at Bhuli having quarters for coal workers, dispensaries, hospitals, schools etc. as offices under the direct supervision and control of BCCL. It consist of five blocks. The management of three blocks of that township was , transferred to BCCL in 1986. The concerned workmen were working...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR390(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. These writ petitions involving common question of law and fact have been heard and disposed of by this order. In CWJC No. 2324 of 1998 the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to absorb them permanently on the basis of panel and after completing the procedure of appointment on the vacant and sanctioned Class III and Class IV posts and in the alternative regularize their services and further for quashing the letter dated 28.12.1996 issued by respondent No. 4, the Chief Malaria Officer, Govt. of Bihar, Patna whereby a direction was issued to make payment of wages to the petitioners as daily wages worker instead of salary DA and other allowances.2. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that the respondents are taking work from them every five months in a year on the post of Superior Field Worker and Field Worker since 1977- 78 and they were receiving the payment of salary and DA and other allowances. It appears that when ...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, District Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar101
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The petitioner, the District Co-operative Mill Union Ltd., Lohardaga, has a cold storage. It is seen that farmers of that area stored their vegetables in the cold storage run by the Co-operative and took them out as and when needed or an opportune time for sale of their produce arrived. Respondents 3 to 5 had left specified quantities of vegetables for storage with the Co-operative . It seems that the cold storage developed some problems and that there was a threat of the vegetables being spoiled. Notices were given to the farmers calling upon them to remove their vegetables. The farmers came and removed part of the vegetables. They were not allowed to remove all the vegetables stored, according to them. Some vegetables got spoiled. Thereupon, the farmers approached, the District Consumer Forum Lohardaga, under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They claimed that vegetables had been lost to them because of the deficiency in services rendered b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meena Jha Vs. BipIn Kumar Jha
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR374(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1.This appeal at the instance of the appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.2001 and 15.9.2001 respectively passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 3 of 1995 by Shri George William Baa, 3rd Additional District Judge, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the said suit filed by her petitioner-husband Bipin Kumar Jha was decreed and their marriage was dissolved.2. The respondent-husband has filed the aforesaid suit for dissolution of his marriage with his appellant-wife Meena Jha by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) that his wife has treated him with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage and has also deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of his matrimonial petition.3. The case of the petitioner-husband (now respondent in this appeal), in brief, is that their marriage was solemni...
Tag this Judgment!Divya Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR393(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks a declaration declaring him a local resident, native or domicile of Jharkhand in order to get preference inadmission in the technical institutions against service men quota.2. Petitioner's case is that he and his ancestors are the residents of State of Jharkhand and both his father and grand father did their education from Ranchi and employed in the service of Indian Army. The petitioner appeared in the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2003 and was declared successful. He was also called for counselling by the respondents. The petitioner applied for his admission against Service Men Quota (shortly SMQ) but his admission was denied on the ground that he is not the 'Mool Niwasi' (original resident) of the State of Jharkhand although he submitted permanent residential certificate duly issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Ranchi dated 11.9.2003. It is contended by the petitioner that he was allowed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (i) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of B ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR542(Jhr)]; (2004)ILLJ793Jhar
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This appeal is by the petitioner in CWJC No. 2827 of 1995 on the file of this Court. By the Judgment under appeal dated 4.8.1997, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said dismissal is challenged.Events leading to this appeal :1. Canteen Mazdoor Sabha approached the Supreme Court with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 702 of 1986 seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Metallurgical and Engineering Consultant (India) Limited (herein after referred to as the MECON) and the Chairman of the Steel Authority of India Limited to treat the employees of the Canteen run by MECON Welfare Committee at par with the employees working in the VIP Guest House and Tea Club of MECON and to grant them every benefit given to those employees and to treat them as employees of MECON. The writ petition was taken on file. It was observed in the order dated 23.2.1987, that there was a dispute on the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Birendra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BLJR241; 2004CriLJ1913
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 13.1.2003 in C.P. Case No. 325/02 passed by Sri J.P.N. Pandey, Chief Judicial Magistrate Bokaro, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the case of the revisionist-complainant under Section 203, Cr PC, finding that there was no prima facie case against the accused person.2. The question mainly to be answered in this revision is whether an accused can set up his defence and produce some documents during inquiry by the Magistrate in proof that the case of the complainant was false and can such a document be considered by the Magistrate along with other documents produced by the complainant and whether on the basis of such a document produced by the accused, can the Magistrate say that the complainant suppressed some matters?3. The aforesaid question arises out of the short facts of the case that Suresh Kumar Tekriwal was one of the partners of firms namely Akchhay Steels, M/s. Vishwanath...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Shibarata Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR484(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.6.1993 and 5.7.1993 respectively passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1 of 1987 'arising out of Title Suit No. 3 of 1985 in connection with Probate Case No. 2 of 1985' passed by Shri A.C. Das, District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the Probate granted vide order dated 9.1.1987 of the Will dated 15.3.1976 executed by Sudhir Chandra Chatterjee deceased (hereinafter referred to as the testator) in favour of appellant in Title Suit No. 3 of 1985 was revoked.2. The said Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1 of 1987 was filed on 24.1.1987 by the petitioner-respondent Shib Brat Chatterjee for the revocation of the Probate granted on 9.1.1987 by the District Judge, Deoghar in favour of the appellant on the basis of the alleged Will dated 15.3.1976 purported to have been executed by the testator in his favour.3. The case of the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »