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.
Hemal Mian Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1503
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the he been falsely implicated in the case and he is a juvenile and the learned Court below did not consider the case of the petitioner though the petitioner is a juvenile and his date of birth is 15-11-1988.2. From going through the record it is apparent that the petitioner has never been declared as juvenile by the competent Court as yet presuming himself to be a juvenile, the petitioner filed appeal against the rejection order of the bail dated 17-7-2002 and against the order of appeal, the revision application has been preferred under the Juvenile Justice Act, but surprisingly enough, the petitioner has not yet been held to be a minor by the competent Court.3. In this view of the matter, I am disposing of this application with direction to the Court concerned/competent Court to pas a fresh order on the point of juvenile in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 341 ...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. their Workmen Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR393(Jhr)]; (2004)IILLJ713Jhar
ORDER1. The Management of the Bharat Coking Goal Limited, the petitioner in W.P.(L) No. 3015 of 2001, is the appellant in this appeal. At the instance of the workmen, represented by Respondent No. 1 herein, the dispute, 'whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union for regularization of Shri Sunder Dusadh and 26 others on the roll of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/S BCCL is justified If so to what relief the workmen are entitled ?', was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. According to the workmen, they were really workmen under the Management of M/S BCCL and they were entitled to be treated as such. The Management took the stand before the Tribunal that they were not their workmen. The Tribunal, after discussing the relevant aspects passed an Award to the following effect:'That the demand of the sponsoring union for regularization of Shri Sunder Dusadh and 26 others as per list annexed to the reference order on the roll of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/S BCC Ltd. is justified and the conc...
Man Mohan Grover Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR701(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.2. A mining lease was granted to the appellant on 15.2.1995 for a period of 10 years. It is seen that the land was already notified as private protected forest under the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act. 1947. After the coming into force of the Bihar Private Forest Act. 1947 and the various decisions of the Supreme Court, it was apparently realized that the land in question could not have been leased out for using the land for non-forest purposes, namely, mining operations and that the lease could not have been granted on the coming into force the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore the lease was cancelled notwithstanding the fact that its term expired only by 22.11.2004. The appellant approached this Court challenging the cancellation of the lease. It was contended that, subsequently, the Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force and the land vested in the State and there was no illeg...
Ramdeo Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-14-2003
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR222(Jhr)]
ORDER1. These two appeals, one at the instance of Shri Ramdeo Paswan and the other at the instance of the State of Jharkhand, have been filed against the order dated 10th December, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5443 of 2001.2. Briefly stated, the facts relate to the settlement of fisheries within a particular zone and a particular panchayat The Circular of the Government in such settlement has, in fact, been set out in the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge had observed that the scheme did not speak of any auction by open bid inviting a short term tender and accordingly the impugned notification appears to be against the spirit of the said Circular of the State Government and was accordingly quashed. The respondents were directed to act according to the scheme as contained in Annexure-A and if the petitioner or any applicant who belongs to Schedule Tribe of the Machua caste are not available in the panchayat, desirous to take...
Shiv Kumar Prasad and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. Etc.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR923; [2003(2)JCR588(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. These cases relate to payment of salary of teaching/ non-teaching staff of colleges which were made constituent colleges in 4th phase. They were heard together for disposal by common order.2. For proper appreciation of cases, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant background of petitioners as mentioned hereunder :According to the petitioners of WP(S) No. 6359/2002 Shiv Kumar Prasad and others, they were appointed as Lecturers in Sadguru Jagjeet Singh Namdhari College, Garhwa, Palarnau (S.S.J.S. Namdhari College, Garhwa for short) in February, 1987, prior to the date the college was made constituent college under the Ranchi University, Ranchi (University for short). They are working and are entitled for salary in view of the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 12th October, 2001 in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and Anr., reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 85 (SC).Petitioners of CWJC No. 3...
Pankaj Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR581(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner, Pankaj Prakash against the order dated 19th September, 2002, whereby he has been transferred from Barkakana to Chittaranjan by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Dhanbad in pursuance of order passed by the Chief Security Commissioner-cum-DIG, RPF, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.2. According to the petitioner (a member of RPF), the respondents cannot transfer him from one zone to another without obtaining concurrence of the Director General, RPF, as per Section 91.2 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, which reads as follows ;'91.2 Enrolled members of the force : All inter-zonal railway transfers of the enrolled members of the Force shall be ordered by the Chief Security Commissioner concerned after obtaining the concurrence of the Director General.'3. It appears that Barkakana which was under Dhanbad Division, as also Chittaranjan both were under Eastern Railway, Kolkata. ...
Major Anand Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR585(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14th October, 2002 (Annexure 13) and the letter dated 24th October, 2002 (Annexure 16), whereby and whereunder, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him and he has been asked to attend the proceeding for hearing.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was posted in 23rd Div. Ord. Unit at Ranchi since January, 1998, under the command of Colonel H.C. Chawla. In February, 1998, he found huge quantity of unauthorized ammunitions and explosives kept in the Unit and a Sepoy of the unit was caught with live hand-grenade while proceeding on leave. The matter was reported to C.O., Col. H.C. Chawla and then to the G.O.C., H.Q., 23rd, Inf. Div. and a Court of enquiry was carried out, but it was closed.According to the petitioner, after the matter became public he was harassed physically and mentally, so he had to make several representations to the senior military authorities ...
Arun Kumar Vs. Bijay Kumar Dhanuka and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR160(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2. Though notice was served on respondent No, 1, he has not chosen to appear.2. The appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant who was injured in an accident which took place on 12.9.1994 involving the vehicle (Truck No. B.I.N. 8284) belonging to respondent No. 1. According to the claimant, as a result of this accident, the claimant appellant suffered partial disability owing, to the shortening of one of his legs. He had incurred substantial expenses for his treatment and he claimed compensation of Rs. 3,89,000/-. The claim of the appellant was opposed by the insurance company before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for injuries suffered by the claimant, a further sum of 28,728/- as medical expenses and Rs. 5000/- for pain and agony, thus awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,03,748/- with interest thereon. Being dissatisfied with the award, the claimant has filed the present appeal.3. The ...
GramIn Vikash Kendra and ors. and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR702(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. All these writ petitions have been taken together for the reason that the same award (Annexure-1) made in Reference Case Nos. 1/85 and 2/96 by the Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, has been challenged by each of the petitioners.2. For the sake of the appreciation of the relevant claims of the each of the petitioners in these writ petitions, the relevant portions of the award are quoted below :'15. Ext. W-15 has been filed to show that the notice was issued on 20.10.83 by the Assistant Manager (Dev.) to the effect that Mr. Lakshman Singh, ARDO, will be incharge for co-ordinating the movement for Vikas Vahan (two trucks) unswe Gram Vikash Kendra and Community Development and that he will also be responsible for the maintenance of the said vehicles through Transport Department and further that drivers Mr. Bhavendra Singh and Md. Yunus will report to him for their duties with copies of several authorities of G.V.K. and TELCO as well as drivers concer...
Ramyad Ram and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR114(Jhr)]
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The appellants were the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 6567 of 1998 (P). They were appointed as Dalpatis on various dates in the years 1994 and 1995 as can be seen from pate 3 of Annexure 3. The appointments were purported to be made under the Bihar Panchayat Village Volunteer Force Rules, 1949. On 23.8.1993, the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was enacted and the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1949 and Bihar Panchayat Miscellaneous Rules, 1961 were both repeated. In the year 1993, a ban was imposed on appointment of Dalpati under the 1949 Rules. The ban was lifted on 27.6.1994. It was after the ban was lifted, that the appellants were appointed as Dalpatis. Subsequently, the appellants were chosen for appointment as Panchayat Sewak based on their initial appointment as Dalpatis. They were required to undergo a training which they successfully completed and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »