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.
Smt. Sudha Prasad Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Jharkhand)475; [2005]275ITR135(Jharkhand); [2003(2)JCR461(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard both sides. The petitioner a legal representative of one deceased B.B. Prasad is before us. Premises of B.B. Prasad was searched on 17.9.1993. B.B. Prasad died on 6.4.2001. On 6.5.2002, notice was issued to B.B. Prasad asking him to file a return under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no return was filed, a notice under Section 142 of the Act was issued to him on 13.6.2002. A notice was again issued to B.B. Prasad on 20.6.2002. The assessment was completed under Annexure 8, which was followed by a demand notice, Annexure 8/1. At this stage, the widow of B.B. Prasad has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order of assessment Annexure 8 and the demand notice Annexure 8/1 on the ground that order of assessment was a nullity. It has been passed against a dead person and hence the demand was unenforceable. 2. On the other hand, it has been submitted by counsel for the department that the factum of death of B.B. Prasad wasnever brought to the notice of the conce...
S.N. Akhauri Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR946
D.N. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Hatia PS Case No. 240 of 2002 corresponding to GR No. 3540 of 2002, registered under Sections 429, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Prosecution case in brief is that one Director, Public Relation-cum-Executive Engineer lodged an FIR alleging therein that Jharkhand State Electricity Board has invited a Tender in pursuance to NIT No. 185/J SEB/PR/01 for construction of 52 Power Sub-Station of 33/11 KV in which 14 Companies have submitted their applications. It is further alleged that Ms. MECON, Ranchi being the Technical and Commercial Adviser of the Board has enquired the fact and the Companies have been recommended for opening their price bid. After opening the price bid on 13-5-2002 and after scru...
Ranchi Club Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR146(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramadiya Prasad, J. 1. Short question to be answered in this writ is whether the impugned bill Annexure-2 which is sought to be quashed is in accordance with Clause 16.9 A(ix) of the Tariff.2. The petitioner had three separate electrical connections of 10 KW each in its premises for last 30 to 40 years. In presence of the club office bearers an inspection of the premises was made and the inspection report Annexure-1 was prepared. Total connected load was detected to be 131.644 KW and in the remark column it was recorded that as per the club representative A.C. was not in working condition, compressors was found removed during the inspection but all motors found connected.3. After this inspection report the board respondent served a notice Annexure-2 upon the petitioner that against the sanctioned load of 30 KW the consumer was found not only exceeding the contracted load but also the limit of 60 KW under the CS III Tariff. A bill was annexed as per 16.9 A(iv) (Annexure-2 and 2/...
Santan Shukla and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR379(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the report dated 11.8.1995 of the Circle Officer, Daltonganj (respondent No. 3) as contained at Annexure 5 and also the Order dated 18.10.1995 passed thereupon by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, (respondent No. 2), whereby and where-under he came to the conclusion that the lands had been settled in violation of the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Ceiling Act). He accordingly cancelled the settlements which had been made in favour of the petitioners and further directed the Circle Officer to take possession of the records and to send recommendation to the sub-divisional officer for purposes of distribution of the lands in question to persons of the appropriate category. The Deputy Commissioner also observed that if the opposite parties therein had any thing to say then they cou...
Smt. Sudha Prasad Vs. Chief Cit
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN864(NULL)
ORDERHeard both sides. The petitioner, a legal representative of on, deceased B.B. Prasad is before us. Premises of B.B. Prasad was searched on 17-9-1993. B.B. Prasad died on 6-4-2001. On 6-5-2002, notice was issued to B.B. Prasad asking him to file a return under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no return was filed, a notice under section 142 of the Act was issued to him on 13-6-2002. A notice was again issued to B.B. Prasad on 20-6-2002. The assessment was completed under Annexure 8, which was followed by a demand notice, Annexure 8/1. At this stage, the widow of B.B. Prasad has. come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order of assessment Annexure 8 and the demand notice Annexure 8/1 on the ground that order of assessment was a nullity. It has been passed against a dead person and hence the demand was unenforceable,2. On the other hand, it has been submitted by counsel for the department that the factum of death of B.B. Prasad was never brought to the notice, of the conce...
Mahadeo Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR568(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders, contained in letters dated 19th February, 2002 and 11th July, 2002 issued by the 4th respondent - Senior Accounts Officer, AC (A&E;) II, Bihar and Jharkhand, Patna, whereby and where-under, the respondents raised objection relating to revision of pay allowed to petitioner since 1st April, 1981 and ordered to fix the pay in the lower scale of Rs. 535-765/-, with further order to recover the amount from the petitioner.2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner joined the services of the State as untrained Health Worker on 23rd January, 1960 and completed training of Health Inspector in September, 1969. During service period, his pay was revised w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.3.1986. On such revision, his pay was fixed and he was paid the salary. Subsequently, the petitioner superannuated from the services of the respondents State from the post of Trained Health Worker on 28th February, 1998.3. After...
Sanjeev Animesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR754(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Santhal Pargana Regional Transport Authority, Dumka in its meeting dated 31.10.2001 allowing counter signature to the permanent stage carriage permit held by respondent No. 4 for the interstate route Ranchi to Dumka via Ratu Road, Patratu, Ramgarh, Bokaro, Dhanbad, Maithan, Mihijam, Jamtara. The contention of the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant permit or allow counter signature to the permit when some of the portion of the route falls within another State. Learned counsel submitted that the same authority earlier rejected application of other persons but it was allowed the application of respondent No. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent drawn my attention to Section 69 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that there is an exception to the power of the Regional Transport Authority where it can grant permit if the area covers within anothe...
Sajal Chakraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR142(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 4. Petitioner is a member of Indian Administrative Service of Bihar Cadre. While he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, District at Chaibasa, he had to go on leave. He was made accused in R.C. Case No. 20(A) of 1996 and two other cases and was declared absconder by Central Bureau of Investigation, Animal Husbandry Unit, Patna. On 15.12.1997 petitioner was suspended under Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') with effect from 11.6.1997 on account of his unauthorised absence and also for being declared absconder by the CBI. Government of India as well as Government of Jharkhand sanctioned prosecution against him respectively under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 9.3.1998 he was arrested in connection with R.C. Case No. 20(A) of 199...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Balihari Colliery of B.C.C. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR481(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 1(i)(d) and 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad'Whether the action of the management of Balihari Colliery, P.O. Kusunda, Distt. Dhanbad in denying regulariza-tion of the services of S/Shri Gaya Ram Mahto and 70 others (as per the list annexed) by the management of M/s. BCCL is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?'2. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union sponsored the dispute of Gaya Ram Mahto and 70 others alleging that they were working at Balihari Colliery in underground mine since 1989 to March 1996 continuously in permanent, perennial and prohibited category of job under the direct control and supervision of the management. They were supplied all the implements for execution of job by the management and they rendered services in producing goods ...
Vijay Ram Vs. Vice-chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR482(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Petitioner was employed and posted as Senior Clerk in Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'). One K.L. Chowdhury was also working there as Senior Clerk and was senior to the petitioner.2. One Sudarsan Ram, who was senior to K.L. Chowdhury along with R.K. Upad-hyay, N. Topno (Scheduled Tribe) and Md. Mobarak, who were junior to K.L. Chowdhury were promoted to the next higher post of Assistant by upgradation with effect from 6.11.1998. Later on the petitioner as well as one B.K.Rajak (Scheduled Caste) were also promoted to the post of Assistant with.effect from 28.11.1998.3. By office order dated 1.12.1998, Issued by the Administrative Officer of the Institute, K.L. Chowdhury was communicated the reason for which the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend his case for promotion/up-gradation from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Assistant. By communication he was also wanted and was directed to improve his cond...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »