Jharkhand Court March 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.
Chamundeshwari Corporation Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR862; [2003(2)JCR552(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks appropriate direction upon the respondents to issue dispatch instruction and take delivery of 2149 Adult Weighting Scales by making payment of the price thereof as agreed in terms of the agreement entered into by the respondents under the World Bank Integrated Child Development Scheme.2. Petitioner's case is that it is authorized agent of manufacturing unit of weighting machines and deals in business, amongst others, supply of such articles on payment. On 28.12.1999 the Government of Bihar, Welfare Department invited tenders for supply of Adult Weighting Machines for supplying to Angan Bari Centers in the district of East Singhbhum and Palamau. Petitioner's tender was accepted for supplying of the weighting machines and on 14.11.2000 an agreement was entered into for the supply of 2149 numbers of Adult Weighing machines, the total value of which being Rs. 14,84,959/-. The tender was invited by the Government of Bihar, Welf...
Debendra Gope and anr. Vs. Komli Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR121(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioners are permitted to rectify defect No. 1. As regards defect No. 2, the transfer petition is treated as such.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner.3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and they have sought a transfer of the suit on the allegation that they apprehend that they would not get justice from the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Chatra since the defendants in the suit have managed to influence the Presiding Officer to decide the same in their favour. The allegation is that one of the petitioners saw the second defendant in the suit along with another man going towards the residence of the Judicial Officer in question. The further allegation is that the second defendant handed over some money to his companion who entered the residence of the Judicial Officer and after some time when he returned from there, the petitioner heard him telling the defendant that things have been settled (Kam Ho Gaya). The petitioners had approached the District Cou...
Durga Thakur Vs. Commissioner North Chhotanagpur Division and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR745(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing the Order dated 09.11.1995 (Annexure 6) passed by the Respondent No. 1 [Commissioner North Chhotanagpur] in Revision Case No. 9/95 whereby and whereunder he set aside the Order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in M.A. No. 64 of 1994 and Ordered that permanent steps be taken so that Mostt Meghni (Respondent No. 6) is not dispossessed from 0.78 Acres of land situated on Khata No. 78 appertaining to Khesra/Plot No. 1563/ 10. By passing the said Order, the Respondent No. 1 thereby upheld the Order dated 18.01.1993 passed by the Circle Officer. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed by way of amendment on 21.03.2003, the Petitioner at paragraph 4 has submitted that while considering the prayer made in the Writ Application, the Order passed by the Circle Officer on 18.01.1993 be also quashed and the order of the Additional Collector passed on 12.12.1994 be upheld.2. According to the Petit...
Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR59(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner has filed this writ for command upon the respondents to grant permanent linkage to the petitioner for lifting slurry from Kathara washery at the rate of 60,000 M.T. per year and also for a direction that the petitioner is entitled to permanent linkage with effect from 11.12.1994, the date on which M/s. Bharat Coal Products, respondent No. 8, was granted linkage and consequential benefits of such declaration, with damage and also restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to lift slurry as a linked consumer.3. The petitioner carries on a business of manufacturing of coke briquettes since year 1989, under the name and style of M/s. Goyal Trading Company, which has been registered with the State Government as a small scale industrial unit. Near Kathara Coal Wassery of C.C.L., which according to the petitioner went on applying for supply of linkage for lifting slurry from Kathara Washery as raw ...
Jaiwanti Tidu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR380(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramadiya Prasad, J. 1. Heard both the sides.2. The petitioner has come to this Court for grant of statutory and penal interest on the retiral dues as also arrear of the salary in the revised scale and interest thereon.Paragraph 13 of the writ petition is relevant which reads as follows :--'That from the revised final pension payment order received from the Accountant General dated 5.7.2002 the re-assessment of gratuity. Leave Encashment with arrear of pay and pension is the most outstanding problem that requires immediate attention and action of the Respondents/Authorities which have already been delayed so badly without any valid reason, particularly when more than seven years have elapsed since the retirement of the petitioner.3. Consequently it has been averred in paragraph 14 of the writ application that payment of interest @ 5% per annum for the' period beyond three months on delayed payment of all kinds of pension (including Family Pension) and Death-cum-Retirement Gratui...
Dr. Tushar Kanti Ganguly Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR692(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this appeal, the petitioner in the writ petition (CWJC No. 1401 of 2001), has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.6.2002 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointment to respondent No. 3 to the post of Director, Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry and Allied Sciences, Kanke. Ranchi and on the further ground that the respondent No. 3 did possess the requisite qualification, as can be seen from the counter-affidavit.3. As regard the first aspect, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a fact that the appellant had not applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement, but still the appellant is entitled to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was illegal, since respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post in question. Apparent confus...
Jagdish Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR352(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 2119 dated 8.5.2002 issued under the signature of respondent No. 5, the Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Water Resources (Irrigation), department, Bihar, Patna whereby a direction has been issued to demote the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Surveyor and to fix his pay scale in the post of Surveyor and to recover the difference of pay from him with effect from 1.7.97.2. The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor in 1965. In 1979 a decision was taken by the Government to promote the Surveyors to the post of Junior Engineer and consequent upon that a list of surveyors who were eligible for promotion including the name of the petitioner was sent and the petitioner along with six others were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee vide office order dated 3/1/84. The petitioner submitted his joining on the post of...
Bharat Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR28(Jhar); 2003(2)BLJR1072; [2003(2)JCR723(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. According to the petitioner in terms of the Contract, as per Clause 24, the dispute in question was referred to the Adjudicator, who directed the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand to look into the claims. It is now understood from the counter affidavit that the Chief Engineer has allowed some claims and rejected others. The decision of the Adjudicator thus rendered through the Chief Engineer was not accepted and in terms of Clause 25 of the Contract the dispute should be referred to an Arbitrator for arbitration. The defence taken in the counter affidavit is that consequent upon the direction of the Adjudicator the Chief Engineer has looked into all the claims and has rendered his decision and there is no need for appointing an Arbitrator. Since Clause 25 of the Contract contemplates arbitratio...
NavIn Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR504(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ application has been heard on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. 2. I have heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel has raised preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition.3. It appears that the petitioner was in the service of the Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF). While he was posted as a constable in CISF unit, Tripura, he was served with a charge sheet and in a departmental proceeding he was finally dismissed from service. Final order of dismissal was passed on 4.4.2000 by respondent No. 4, Group Commandant, CISF, Calcutta. The petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of CISF, Calcutta which was also dismissed. By that time the petitioner after dismissal fro...
Jagdish Choubey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR23(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the notification No. 1954 dated 19th October, 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner shall not get any amount for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance,2. The brief case of petitioner is that he was suspended vide order No. 9 dated 25th June, 1998 by the State of Bihar. A Departmental proceeding, thereafter, was initiated by the State of Bihar vide Resolution No. 1999 dated 10th July, 1998. The petitioner filed show-cause reply denying the allegations and attended the proceeding. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report some time in 1999 (vide Annexure 8) but thereafter no final order was passed.3. After re-organization (15th November, 2000) of the State the petitioner continued in his Headquarter at Galudih, District-Singhbhum (West). No final order having passed the petitioner had to move before this Court in CWJ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »