Jharkhand Court December 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.
Parmeshwari Bai and anr., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR531; [2004(1)JCR551(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these writ petitions involving common question of law have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The writ petitioners have challenged the notice and newspaper publication issued under the direction of respondent No. 2, Minister, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi calling upon the petitioners to appear on the date fixed for hearing in the land ceiling cases pending against them before the competent authority under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 19763. In WPC No. 3230 of 2003, petitioner's case is that after coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the said Act) statement in terms of Section 6 of the Act was submitted and it was registered as U.L.C. Case No. 305/76. In that case a draft statement was published and the petitioner filed objection and the matter is pending before the competent authority. Similarly, case of the petitioners of...
Gagan Thakur Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BLJR415; 2004CriLJ1910
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The following questions require to be answered in this writ petition :Whether the case of an absconding accused can be committed under Section 209, Cr PC along with the accused who have already appeared before the committing Court and whether the remand to judicial custody by the sessions Court of the absconding accused, when he appears before that Court is illegal and consequently whether the absconder is entitled to compensation for illegal detention?2. The questions aforesaid arise out of the short fact that in Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 97/1997 dated 27.10.1997, G.R. Case No. 1395/97 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltanganj, charge-sheet was submitted against some of the accused and some accused were shown as absconders. One of the absconding accused is the petitioner in this writ petition. By order dated 18.7.2000, the case was committed to the Court of sessions and the absconding accused were declared absconders and permanent warrant of arre...
Bokaro Steel Plant Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR919]; [2004(1)JCR630(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the SAIL) is also a Government Company incorporated with the main object of manufacturing, prospecting, buying, selling, importing, exporting, or otherwise dealing in iron and steel of all qualities, types and kinds and in any other steel and iron related products. The Bokaro Steel Plant is claimed to be a pioneer steel Plant of the country and one of the largest of its kind, having a total production capacity of 2 million tonnes per year. The steel Plant is covered by a network of gas pipelines, water network and steam pipelines. It is claimed that the whole system of network of pipelines is integrated and a very high standard of safety is required to maintain the minimum level of pressure in the pipelines. The pressure in the pipelin...
Devendra Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR367(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, learned Government Pleader No. III for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.2. By order dated 3.8.2002 as contained in Annexure 4, the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that he was appointed irregularly after the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1988. The respondents have brought on record the letter by which the aforesaid cut off date was made a yardstick for purposes of terminating the services of persons appointed thereafter i.e. after 1.1.1988. .3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit wherein he has stated at Paragraph 7 that in fact the petitioner had entered into the service initially in the month of April, 1986 and he was regularized in the Work Charged Establishment on 28.11.1990 by Annexure 1. In support of the aforementioned contention to the effect that ...
Md. Sadique Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR645(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In order to appreciate the question raised by Mr. P.D. Agarwal learned counsel appearing for the respondents by way of preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition before this Court, I consider it pertinent to mention here some relevant facts arising out of the present writ petition.2. The petitioner, resident of the district of Koderma within the State of Jharkhand, was a constable in Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Shar Centre, Sriharikota, Andhra Pradesh. While the petitioner was posted at Sriharikota, a charge memo under the CISF Rules dated 17.6.1999 was issued and subsequently the petitioner was awarded punishment of fine equivalent to seven day's wages. Thereafter, appeal filed by the petitioner against the said punishment was rejected by the Commandant, CISF (Ministry of Home Affairs) Unit Shar Centre Sriharikota 524124 (A.P.) vide order dated 2.8.1999. Again for some other charges, another memorandum of ch...
Deobrat Sahay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR354(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The question to be answered in this LPA is whether the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the office order dated 19.2.03, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, by which non-extension of the tenure of the appellant was conveyed to him and he was relieved from the duty as Director, Personnel, erred in not holding that (i) the respondents could not have terminated the service of the appellant as Director without any rhyme and reason and (ii) on a vague vigilance enquiry, his extension of tenure could not have been refused?2. The aforesaid questions arise out of admitted facts that the appellant was promoted to the post of the Chief General Manager, Central Mines, Planning & Design Institute Limited, on March, 1997, and he became eligible to be appointed as Director for which he was interviewed in the year 1996 along with other eligible candidates and ultimately by order dated 27.5.1997 and 21.12.1997, Annexure 1 to...
Anjali Saran and Smt. Reeta Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR550; [2004(1)JCR465(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The matter relates to appointment of lecturer in History in Bokaro Mahlla College which is an affiliated college. It has five sanctioned posts of lecturer in the Department of History, The second post was sanctioned in 1987 while the 3rd, 4th and 5th post were sanctioned in 1990. The commission namely Bihar State University Service Commission advertised 1st post in 1983 vide advertisement No. 130/83. The second post was advertised in 1989 by advertisement No. 862/89. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th post were advertised in 1984 vide advertisement No. 7/94. Many candidates including the petitioner and respondent applied for the said post. The commission held the interview and finally recommendation was sent by the commission for all the five posts in 1998 vide memo No. 48 dated 21.4.1998. From perusal of Annexure-10 which is a letter of recommendation dated 21.4.1998 It appears that the recommendation was made in the following manner.Advertisement No. 130/83First Post1. Smt. Dipa ...
Nilamber Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR623(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In 1966 the petitioners applied before the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla for granting mining lease of minor mineral of plot No. 3708 of Village, Baghima. P.O. Baghima, P.S. Palkot, Dist. Gumla. It appears that on application the Circle Officer, Palkot conducted a legal inspection and vide letter dated 8.2.1996 and 29.10.1996 address to respondent No. 4, Assistant Mining Officer reported that the land is outside the forest area. The Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 29.2.1996 and 3.2.1997 informed the Mining Officer that the plot for which the petitioners have applied for mining lease is outside the forest area and further informed that the mining lease could be given to the petitioners.3. The petitioners case is that after completing all the formalities mining lease in respect of the aforesaid plot was granted in 1996 and lease agreement was executed by the respondents giving the Mining lease for a period of 10 years. However, in 1...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sernet Singh @ Naga Singh an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC757
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and award and, therefore have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. A motor accident took place on 6th October, 1997 on head-on collision between two vehicles namely a Tata Sumo (BR-14E-0060) and a truck (AXA-8235) wherein the driver of Tata Sumo, Ram Kishore Singh, aged about 22 years, died. His parents, widow and minor children filed Compensation Case No. 222 of 1997, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was disposed of by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi by impugned judgment dated 13th September, 2002, directing payment of a sum of Rs. 2,66,200/- with interest @ 9% under the Act to the claimants.2. The Insurance Company has filed M.A. No. 279 of 2002 challenging the award to the extent that the driving licence of the deceased driver, Ram Kishore Singh being forged, it was not responsible to indemnify the liability of the owner of the truck. In our ...
Chintamani Devi Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR372(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned Government Pleader No. 1 for the State of Jharkhand-respondents.2. The petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for quashing the resolution dated 15.5.1999 by which the punishment of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 48,781.44 paise was inflicted upon the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the enquiry report as against the concerned employee by which the enquiry officer had found the charges levelled against the husband of the petitioner to be proved. Consequently the petitioner also makes a prayer for quashing the entire departmental proceedings.3. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts save and except to take notice of the fact that the petitioner's husband was proceeded against for the following charges :(a) Proceeding on unauthorised leave.(b) Making appointment of daily wagers without any authority.(c) Mi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »