Jharkhand Court April 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.
Ramesh Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR349(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents,2. The prayer made by the writ petitioner in the instant case is for quashing the award dated 15.4.1997 passed in Reference Case No. 14/94/16/94, whereby and whereunder he held that the termination of the petitioner from service was legal, valid and justified and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.3. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of in this case are that in the night ensuing between 12th and 13th August, 1980, the petitioner was driving a bus belonging to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation bearing number BHX 7584 from Jamshedpur to Arrah but near a place between Chauparan and Sher-ghati, a dacoity was committed in which the property belonging to the passengers were looted. The allegation against the petitioner was that inspite of request made by the passengers, the driver and the conductor did not inform...
Bansal Industrial Gases (Bihar) Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR116(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 21.4.2000 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent No. 2 disposing off the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed on 28.1.2000 in CWJC No. 3625 of 1999 (R) (Annexure-8). By reason of the said impugned order dated 21.4.2000, the respondent No. 2 held that there was prima facie allegation of theft of energy against the petitioner and therefore Clause 16.9 of the Tariff was applicable.2. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the Bills raised pursuant to the said order dated 21.4.2000 on the ground that the same is not as per the directions given in the impugned order nor is it in accordance with the formula meant to be followed as per Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff. The petitioner also makes a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the electric connection of the petitioner's factory having Consumer No. HGAP 85 which, according to the petitioner, was ill...
U.S. Pandey Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR337(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this Writ Application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order/letter dated 20.10.1993 issued by the respondent No. 3, as contained at Annexure-5, whereby and whereunder, while referring to the pending charge-sheets dated 19.2.1993, Supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.01.1993 and also the charge-sheet dated 14.6.1993, the petitioner was informed that although he would be superannuating on and from 31.10.1993, yet, in terms of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Central Bank of India Officers' Service Regulation, 1979, the disciplinary proceedings would continue against him in the same manner as if he was in the service of the Bank until the proceedings were concluded and final orders passed. In other words, he would be deemed to be continuing in service only for purposes of the disciplinary proceedings until they came to a conclusion with the passing of final orders. The other portion of the order/letter assigned reasons for issuance of the same to the effect that the d...
Arun Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR441(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant is employed as Assistant in Labour Department of the State Government. He was suspended with effect from 9.8.2002 and departmental proceeding was initiated for the charges levelled against him. He filed W.P. (S) No. 4809 of 2002 in this Court challenging the order of his suspension as well as aforesaid departmental proceeding, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 3.12.2002 with the following observation/ direction:' I am not inclined to give any finding in respect to the merits of the allegations/charges as made/framed against the petitioner. It is expected that the respondents will conclude the departmental proceeding on an early date.'The present appeal has been filed against the said order. In view of the aforesaid direction after some argument counsel forthe appellant sought permission to withdraw this appeal. The permission is accorded and the appeal is permitted to bewithdrawn with a direction to the authority concerned...
Md. Noorul Hoda and ors. Vs. Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR129(Jhr)]; (2004)ILLJ787Jhar
1. The appellants were employed in the erstwhile, Hindustan Steel Limited (H.S.L.), a Government of India undertaking. In the year 1973, Government of India formed a new Company, namely, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and another new Company known as Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Limited (MECON). The Central Engineering Design Bureau (CEDB) a department of H.S.L. was transferred and merged in the MECON. Subsequently, after enactment of the Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies (Restructuring) Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the H.S.L stood dissolved.2. The appellants accepted the offer of appointment and joined the services in MECON. Under Section 15 of the 1978 Act, the appellants being the employees of the transferred unit C.E.D.B. continued as the employees of the corresponding unit of the transferee Company, MECON on the same terms and conditions of the Company and upon the same rights and privileges as t...
Mathura Sao and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)18; 2003(51)BLJR1029; II(2003)DMC578a
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.7.1998 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 395 of 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional judicial Commissioner, Ranchi convicted the appellants for the offences Under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each Under Section 304B/34 of, the Indian Penal Code, three years' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, five years' rigorous imprisonment to appellant Nds. 1, 2 and 3 Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and two years' Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to all the appellants. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in...
Sabitri Devi and ors. Vs. Badri Prasad Sah and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR29(Jhr)]
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by tenants-defendants against the eviction decree passed by the Court of appeal below under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Original defendant No. 1, Sitaram San was brother-in-law of the plaintiff, who was inducted as tenant in the suit premises, detailed in Schedule at the foot of the plaint. 3. It is a shop room approximately north-south 10' X east-west 7-1/2 and is part of Holding No. 82 (old) 91 (new), situated within ward No. IX of Deoghar Municipality.4. Plaintiff claimed reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit shop, under occupation of original defendant No. 1, which was most suitable for his business purpose. He had sufficient capital and had full knowledge how to run a business of utensils, but in absence of any shop he was virtually sitting idle. He, therefore, sought for a decree for eviction under the Act.5. Original ...
Rama Shankar Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR66(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 namely Smt. Shanti Devi and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, learned G.P.- II who appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Commandant, Bihar Military Police - 04, Bokaro Steel City) as contained at Annexure - 5, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the authorities to reinstate him in service. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the Bihar Military Police, Bokaro in 1986. His wife namely the respondent No. 5 (Smt. Shanti Devi), filed a complaint alleging bigamy and cruelty and accordingly demanded maintenance. On the basis of such a complaint having been made, the pe...
Chatra Chetna Sangathan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR1038; [2003(3)JCR80(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner through its Chairman, Himanshu Mishra who has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Director General of Police (Vigilance), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to make a detailed enquiry regarding the supply of C.S.B. (Dalia) infested with insects and non-supply of S.S. Oil to the poor and innocent pre-school children in the various centres of Amrapara Block in the district of Pakur in view of the series of complaint of the villagers and also regarding illegal deductions of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- from the honorarium of Sevika and Sahayaikas respectively every month and extortion of Rs. 800/- to Rs. 2,000/- from the Sevikas and Sahayaikas by respondent No. 6 under threat and coercion on the false plea regarding its recovery due to audit and also for a direction to respondent No. 1 for initiating disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for the act of their...
Range Officers of Forest Association Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR650(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Pan-dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the State Respondents.2. The petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for, issuance of the writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to start stipend to all Range Officers of Forests who are undergoing training in different colleges w.e.f. 19.5.1993 at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per month. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner on 19.8.2002 it has been stated at Paragraph 6 that the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Hinoo, Ranchi vide letter No. 2985 Ranchi-2, dated 13th July, 1996 wrote to the Additional Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, stating that there was no justification in giving stipend to the trainee Range Officer during the training period. The P.C.C.F. had recommended for payment of regular salary to the said Trainee Range Officers from the date of their training, a practice which is in vogue in every ser...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »