Jharkhand Court April 2003 Judgments
Sonaram Kachhap and Jagu Bodra and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR629(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. The appellants named above have preferred this appeal against the Impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.1996 and 23.7.1996 respectively passed by Shri G.K. Verma, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshed--pur in ST No. 124 of 1992 whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced each to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 and R.I. for seven years each for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the self-statement (Ext. 3) of PW 7 Vijay Kumar Singh, S.I. Jugsalai P.S. lodged before the said P.S. on 7.3.1992 at 17.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 15.10 hours in front of scrap taal of one Pusi Babu at Bir Kuwar Singh chowk on the station road, P.S. Jugasalai, District East Singhbhum in which Sailendra Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Bera Colliery Company Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR749(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. In this Writ Petition, filed on 30.9.1991, the constitutional validity of Section 19 of Coal Mines Nationalization Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 57 of 1986) especially subsection (b) thereof, is challenged on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Act, which came into force on 23.12.1986, amended both the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972 and the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act. 1973. We are concerned here with the amendment to Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 which came into force on 1.5.1973. It is not necessary to go into the history of the Legislation and the arguments elaborately advanced before us on behalf of the petitioner. This is for the reason that the question had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court. Even then we may briefly indicate some of the salient aspects leading to the present challenge.2. The Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 (here-in-after re...
Tag this Judgment!Bera Colliery Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR628(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The suit filed by the plaintiff, the petittoner in CWJC No. 2091/9HR), the owner of Bera Colliery, taken over under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 19 of the Coal Mines Nationalization Laws (amendment) Act (Act 57 of 1986). It is not disputed that the suit is hit by Section 19 of Act 57 of 1986. It was in that context that the plaintiff, the appellant of 1986. We have, by our judgment in CWJC No. 2091/91(R) heard along with this appeal, rejected the challenge for the reasons stated by us in our separate judgment rendered today in that writ petition. In other words, we have upheld the validity of the provision or, rather we have held that the constitutional validity of the provisions stands upheld by the Supreme Court in Bhubaneswar Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 77. 2. Since we have upheld the validity of Section 19(b) of Act 57 of 1986, nothing more remains to be d...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Krishna Prasad Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR457(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for two reliefs :--(a) For consideration of his case for promotion from E - 7 to E - 8 Grade with effect from May, 1992; and (b) For consideration of his case for promotion from M- 2 to M-3 Grade with effect from June, 1995. 3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, in the event of success, the petitioner would be entitled to only monetary benefits.4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows :'I further say that the contention of -the petitioner is denied because as per the criteria/methodology approved/ decided by the competent Board the promotion proceedings were carried out by the Selectio...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chandra Garg Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR458(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, in the event of success the petitioner would be entitled to only monetary benefit.3. The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of Annexure 2 which is a letter dated 8/11.12.1995 issued by the C.M.D., CMPDIL (respondent No. 4) whereby and whereunder a formal communication has been made informing the petitioner that his representation has been rejected. Though not having said so in so many words which the C.M.D. should have done, he merely quotes and unquotes the minutes of a decision taken on the representation of the petitioner. However, according to Mr. P.K. Prasad, the representation, was, in fact rejected as per the above mentioned comm...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchi Zila Nagrick Unayan Parisad H.E.C. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR571(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Jharkhand, counsel for the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) and counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.2. This writ petition is filed by Ranchi Zila Nagrick Unayan Parisad, H.E.C. Ltd. Parisad Branch through its President, with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (H.E.C. Ltd.) not to close the H.E.C. Girls High School, Dhurwa and for other consequential reliefs including the providing of proper facilities in the H.E.C. Girls High School, Dhurwa and making available uninterrupted power supply.3. According to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed in public interest, since the interest of parents and their wards, 1033 in number, studying in H.E.C. Girls High School, Dhurwa is involved. According to the petitioner, a notice was put up on the Notice Board of the Girls High School to the effect that from 21.4.2003 all...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Ram Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR366(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.10.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWJC No. 806 of 2000 (R). Petitioner of the said writ application is appellant herein. He is a retired teacher of Government Elementary School. His grievance was that arrears of his salary for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 together with statutory as well as penal interest till the date of payment be given to him. It is not in dispute that after nationalization of Non-Government Elementary Schools with effect from 1.1.1971 in the Government Resolution No. 763 dated 9.2.1973, it was provided that such teachers shall be entitled to get prescribed scale of pay for the Government teachers with effect from 1.4.1973 and their arrears of salary for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 shall be deposited in their provident fund accounts.2. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ application it was stated that a sum of Rs. 3033/- being his arrears of salary for the aforesaid per...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lakhan Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR638(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ for a direction upon the respondents to reckon and treat the petitioner as Government Servant from the date of his initial appointment as Chaukidari Tahsil-dar In view of Government Notification No. 598 dated 25.8.1995 and to calculate, refix and pay the difference of the pension and other retirement benefits and further direction to the respondent to give arrear of pay after giving the petitioner 1st and 2nd time bound promotion and fix the pension accordingly as well as direction for refund of the amount, which has been deducted from the pension of the petitioner as per pension intimation and also for arrear of salary in the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1964, 1971, 1981 and 1986 and other consequential benefits along with penal interest @ 18 per annum. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Chaukidari Tahsildar and he was not a Government employee in the year 1955. Subsequently after the abolition of Jamindari by Annexure-...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand Vs. Sushil Murmu
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1406
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. Death Reference No. 3 of 2002 under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara and Cr. Appeal No. 874 of 2002 preferred by sole appellant named above arise from the impugned judgment and order dated 29-11-2002 and 30-11-2002 respectively passed in Sessions case No. 165 of 1997/215 of 2001 by Shri Surendra Nath Pandey, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder appellant, Sushil Murmu was found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence undor Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, co-accused Rijmani Manjhian and Bahmani Murmu ware found not guilty and they ware acqultted-2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of PW-2, Somlal Besra, the father of Chirku Be...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC346; II(2004)ACC340; [2003(3)JCR254(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner has challenged an-nexure-13 of the writ petition whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 5 rejected the representation of the petitioner, which was to be disposed of in compliance of the order passed in CWJC No. 10106 of 2000. 3. The main question is whether this writ can be disposed of on a preliminary point of jurisdiction of the authority passing the impugned order. On perusal of paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10, it appears that the petitioner was objector in the impugned proceeding his case was that the permit stands in the name of petitioner from Tata to Hazaribagh in which time of departure from Tata is 09.5 am. 4. I revert to maintainability of the impugned order on the point of jurisdiction Admittedly this matter is covered under the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 88 Clause (1) reads as follows : Except as may he otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »