Jharkhand Court February 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.
Sardar Asha Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR207(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 5/1990, whereby he has allowed the application filed by the opposite parties for impleading them as respondents in the said appeal.2. This short fact giving rise to and relevant for the purpose of this case are that plaintiff/respondents filed Title Suit No. 151/1983 for a decree of eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds of personal necessity, default and breach in terms of tenancy and also for arrears of rent.3. The defendant/petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1990 decreed the suit and passed the order for eviction of the defendant. Defendant/petitioner aggrieved by the said decree filed Title Appeal No. 5/90 against the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal the intervenor/opposite parties claimed to h...
J.K. Yadav Vs. the Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR689(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides.The claim of the petitioner is that he was eligible for being promoted to E2 cadre, but he was not given promotion to that post on the sole ground that he was not possessing the three years diploma in Electronics/ Telecommunication/Instrumentation. 2. The positive case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as technical supervisor grade A on 1.9.1976 in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and after getting advanced diploma in mine instrumentation and telecommunication (duration of 1 year) from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, was promoted in E-1. At the relevant time when the case for promotion of the petitioner was not considered though he was having requisite qualification of one year diploma in mine electronics and telecommunication but not having a three years diploma. Consequently, his case was not considered. In this regard Annexure-1/1 is relevant, which reads as follows :'Advance Diploma in Mining 'Electronics of at least one year duratio...
F.C.i. Ltd. Sindri Unit Employees Association and ors. Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR636(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioners against Circular dated 25th November, 2002 and Circular dated 16th September, 2002, whereby the employees of the Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd., Sindri (FCI for short) have been allowed to retain quarters for a maximum period of fifteen days on normal rent who opted for superannuation and allowed the same w.e.f. 31st December, 2002, as per Voluntary Separation Scheme (V.S. Scheme for short).2. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the employees of FCI have been forced to apply for superannuation as per V.S. Scheme as the Respondents decided to close the FCI Sindri Unit.Though the employees such as petitioners have been allowed to superannuate as per V.S. Scheme, but they have not been paid retiral benefits. On the other hand, they have been asked to vacate the Quarters within fifteen days of retirement on normal rent.It is also submitted that the Respondents have issued a separate Scheme for ...
Gokul Chandra Das Vs. Susanta Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar58; [2003(1)JCR618(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. One Smt. Biraja Bala Das executed a Will in which the petitioner, Gokul Chandra Das and one Suresh Chandra Das were appointed as executors of the said Will. After the death of Smt. Biraja Bala Das who died on 27.7.1977 later Suresh Chandra Das, one of the executors, filed an application for grant of probate of the Will. In the said probate case the petitioner who was also one of the executors, was made opposite party. In the said probate case the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause denying and disputing the existence of the Will. The petitioner contested the case alleging that the Will is a forged document and the applicant was not entitled to get probate of the said Will. The said probate case was, therefore, converted into a title suit being No. 1/97. During the pendency of the said probate case the applicant, Suresh Chandra Das died on 22.4.2000 and his heirs who are opposite parties, applied for substitution of their names in place of the deceased - a...
Farhana Khatoon Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR773]; [2003(1)JCR640(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Notification bearing Memo No. 3737 dated 13th December, 2002 whereby she has been transferred to Headquarters at Ranchi and has been asked to report after return from leave and to submit medical fitness certificate of the Medical Board for sanction of leave.2. The case of the petitioner is that vide Notification No. 1045 dated 6th April, 2002 she was transferred. It was challenged by her in W.P. (S) No. 2612 of 2002. The Court vide order dated 25th April, 2002 While did not choose to interfere with the order, liberty was given to petitioner to move before the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Jharkhand to bring to its notice the allegations and infirmities as were alleged in the writ petition.Thereafter, the respondents posted the petitioner as D.S.E. Hazaribagh vide Notification dated 30th June, 2002 where she joined on 3rd July, 2002.3. Further case of the petitioner is that the District Education Establi...
Union Construction Co. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR41(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.5.96 passed by Sub-judge, II, Bermo at Tenughat inTitle Suit No. 5/88 whereby he has decided the issue of limitation and res judicata as preliminary issue and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a partnership firm carrying on the business of construction work. In 1966 it entered into an agreement with the defendant-respondent No. 2 for earth work in Tenughat Dam Project. In course of construction work the contract was terminated and the respondents detained the tractor Doser, wielding set and other vehicles. Consequently a dispute arose and the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 89/73 in the Court of Sub-judge, Giridih seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. The said application was allowed and the Superintending Engineer, Dam Project Tenughat was appointed as an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his ...
Anirudh Marik Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1518; [2003(2)JCR57(Jhr)]
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J.1. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 31-7.2002 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1982 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court rejected the petition filed by the informant-petitioner under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for bringing two public documents on the records as exhibits.2. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Appellate Court committed error in rejecting the petitioner's prayer to get those two documents exhibited which are public documents, at the stage of appeal as, according to the petitioner, both the documents are essential for arriving at the correct conclusion of the case and for the ends of justice, those public documents are essential to be exhibited.3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that in the judgment of con...
State of Bihar Vs. Jagarnath Mehra and ors.,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR202(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since common question of law has been raised by the appellant and the facts are also common, these appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Reference case Nos. 565, 613 and 614 of 1971.3. It appears that the lands of Mouja Sangjori, P.S. Chas, district-Dhanbad have been acquired for the purpose of Bokaro Steel Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued on 9.8.1956 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 17.8.1962. Possession of the land was taken on 29.9.1968. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award giving compensation of the acquired lands. The' said award was made on 23.3.1969.4. The respondents-claimants, after receiving the compensation amount, challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and the matter was re...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Bokar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR518(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ran-jan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.2. The Petitioner prays for quashing a portion of the Award dated 19.5.1995 (An-nexure-1) passed by the Respondent No. 1.(Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City) in reference case No. 29 of 1988 by which full back wages and other consequential benefits have been awarded. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the other portion of the award i.e. the award of reinstatement is not being challenged as the petitioner has already been reinstated in service. The only portion, with which they are aggrieved, is the order of full back wages and other consequential benefits.3. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 (i.e. the concerned workman, Kedar Mahato) was a habitual absentee. He was absent for 75 days during the months of July to September, 1986 and again from 12.2.1987 to 17.04.1987. The absence was committed without prior permissio...
Wakil Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR524(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2002 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur whereby he has allowed the application filed by the respondent company and decided to take up some of the issues as a preliminary issue before deciding other issues. The proceeding before the Labour Court arose out of a reference made by the appropriate Government and the term of reference was as to whether the petitioner -the workman of MHS Department IISCO Ltd. is a workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and whether the retirement is justified. The Labour Court entertained the application filed by the respondent and finally ordered that the matter shall be heard only as preliminary issue (objection raised by the management). In my opinion the Labour Court is not at all justified in proceeding with piecemeal hearing of the case. It would be proper for the Labour Court to decide all the issues including the prelimin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »