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.
Singh Electrical and Constructions Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar13; 2005(1)CTLJ110(Jhar); [2003(1)JCR635(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the allotment of work order for Group COP-2 and CSR-2 made in favour of 4th and 5th Respondents respectively pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender No. 10/ 2000-03 published in the newspaper 'Prab-hat Khabar'.2. According to the petitioner, it has submitted tender paper for CSR-2 for 95 nos. of Drill Tubewells in the district of Chas for a value of Rs. 25.308 lacs. It has also submitted a separate tender for COP-2 for construction of same nature of work for a sum of Rs. 21.312 lacs. It fulfils all the requirements and conditions as per notice.3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the tender was not opened on 14th November, 2002, the date as fixed. It could come to know on 26th November, 2002 that the works in question, have been allotted in favour of 4th and 5th Respondents respectively.4. The Respondents on their appearance, have disputed the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner. ...
Kamal Prasad More Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR40(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent-Electricity Board refusing to grant fresh electrical connection in the premises of the petitioner.3. The petitioner purchased a house from Sri Narayan Himatsingka by a registered sale dated 5.12.2001. After purchase the petitioner got his name mutated and has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The petitioner applied for new electric connection in the premises on 8.12.2001 but the Board refused to give new connection on the ground that some electric charges . are due against the erstwhile owner.4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Board it is stated that according to the records of the Board a sum of Rs. 1,72,515.82 paise is due against the erstwhile owner and there is clear instruction and Govt. circular that a fresh connection cannot be given in such premises.5. Neither the Govt. circular has been annexed nor satisfactory ...
Ranjit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR535]; [2003(1)JCR611(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the Order No. 4/Nigrani/ 378/2001 dated 17th September, 2001 issued by the Registrar. Cooperative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and where-under, he was placed under suspension, he having taken in custody on 4th September, 2001, in connection with G.R. Case No. 768/ 2000. The effect of the order of suspension given from retrospective date when the petitioner was taken in custody. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he having suspended as per Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code having taken in custody, after his release from jail custody, in absence of any order of suspension, under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code, the Respondents cannot force the petitioner to continue under suspension. 3. It appears that a complaint case was filed by one Budhna Bhagat against petitioner and two others in the Court of learned C.J.M., Gumla, vide Complaint Case No. 164/2000 under Section 419/409/ 467/468 and 471 of the IPC. It was order...
Santosh Stone Works Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR569(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner was a LTIS consumer, having a connected load of 25 HP. Its line was disconnected allegedly on 29.11.2000, which the petitioner disputes and says that the line was not disconnected. But, according to the respondents, the line was disconnected on that date and after the disconnection, a raid was made allegedly on the premises of the petitioner when a load of 30 HP was detected, besides pilferage pf power as against the alleged disconnection. This raid was made on 17.2.2001 and consequently, an FIR was lodged. The case of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act was served upon it and the power.was never-disconnected and whatever FIR was lodged is just on the, basis of some imaginary disconnection and allegation of pilferage is quite false.2. To the contrary, the case of the respondents is that by Annexure A, a notice, was served upon the petitioner on 25.9.2000. During the course of argument, the learned cou...
Sanjay Dom Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR715(Jhr)]
ORDERS.K. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in letter No. 659 dated . 12th April, 2002 (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder his claim for appointment on compassionate ground under para 9.3.2 of NCWA-V has been rejected on the ground that the application was filed after lapse of about 7 months.3. The counsel for the respondents submitted that a circular No. PDMP/ 9:4:2/95/7151 dated 12th December 1995 was issued by M/s. CCL Ranchi whereunder six months period from the date of death was stipulated for filing application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was filed after about 7 months beyond the period of limitation.4. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Roopna Manjhi v. CCL and Ors., (WP (S) No. 4694 of 2002). This Court, noticed the aforesaid circular dated 12th December, 1995 and vide its Unreported) decision dated 27th Novembe...
Uma Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR140(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this writ Application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 01.02.1994 as contained at Annexure I. whereby the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 66-B of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 reduced the age of retirement of all employees of the Central Cooperative Bank from 60 years to 58 years. The Petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 13.05.1994 (Annexure 5) by which a notice was given to him to the effect that he would be completing the age of 58 years on 02.11.1994 and therefore he would be superannuating with effect from 30.11.1994. The Petitioner has further prayed that the Respondents be restrained from giving effect to the aforementioned two orders.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Head Clerk cum-Accountant in the Bank on 05.06.1963 and was promoted some time in August, 1987 on the post of Administrative Officer. It has further been contended by the Petitioner that the Central...
Anurag Ranjan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR623(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.11.2000 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act on the ground that it was ex parte and was passed without any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order of the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) dated 15.2.2001 in Appeal No. 8 of 2001 by which the Appeal was also dismissed. 2. The main points that the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued is that there was no demand of any loan alleged to be outstanding against him and no notice was ever served upon him and yet an award was passed against him holding him liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,62,836.80. The petitioner has further submitted that he is not even a member of the Central Co-operative Bank nor was a surety of any member and consequently the order dated 13.11.2000 (Annexure 2) ought to have first decided as to whether the ...
Mahipal Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR401(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. This is a case for appointment of a Pradhan in village Kurma in the District of Godda under the provision of the S.P.T. Supplementary provision Act read with S.P.T. Supplementary Rules, 1950. 2. Admittedly there was a Pradhan appointed in that village, admittedly the Pradhan died, subsequent thereto the question of appointment of a Pradhan arose. TheSections 5 and 6 of the Act do provide for such appointment. 3. The procedure for appointment is prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3(5) of the Rules is relevant for the purpose, which reads as follows :-- In making the appointments of headman under Section 5 or Section 6 the Deputy Commissioner shall, as far as possible, follow the rules prescribed in Schedule V except where these rules, expressly or by necessary implication, provide otherwise. 4. Now if the Head Man died then he may leave successor or he may not leave successor and if he does not leave successor then a fresh step under the Rules has...
Raj Kishore Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR637(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 4.2.2003 which reads as follows : 'Heard Mr. J.P. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 12.3.2002 by which this Court had observed that in spite of several adjournments no Counter Affidavit had been filed and therefore, this Court was constrained once again to give ten more days time to the State to file necessary affidavit and also observed that in the absence of Counter Affidavit being filed within the said period, the Writ Petition will proceed in its absence. Today when the case has been called out, this Court finds the same situation prevailing and complete apathy on the part of the State. There is no Counter Affidavit till date. Consequently this Court has no option but to close the right of the State to file Counter Affidavit. Let this case be listed under the heading ...
Ram Singh Jaiswal Vs. Central Bank of India and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC423; [2003(2)JCR39(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.97 passed by the District Judge, Singhbum, West in Insolvency case No. 3/87 whereby he has rejected the application of the appellant for declaring him as Insolvent.2. The petitioner-appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (in short the Act) with a prayer that he may be adjudicated insolvent. The appellant's case is that he was an employee of Tisco Ltd. at Jamshedpur from where he retired in August 1974 and is presently residing in Plot No. NS5, phase I, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. His son had taken a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from Central Bank of India, Adityapur and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation, Patna for carrying on his business. In the said loan the appellant stood as a guarantor. The creditor- Central Bank of India filed a suit against...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »