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.
Bimal Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR689(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P.-I for the respondents.2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26/10/1999 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 86/97-98 by which he passed an order of confiscation under the provision of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of for the adjudication of this case is that pursuant to an inspection in the business premises of the petitioner on 22.12.1997, certain irregularities were detected and consequently, the stock-in-trade were seized and an F.I.R. was lodged with the police under Section 7 of the aforementioned Act. Thereafter, a confiscation proceeding was initiated on the basis of the report sent to the Deputy Commissioner by the Special Officer (Ration), Jamshedpur and by an order dated 29/12/1997, the Deputy Commissioner initiated the confiscation proceeding ...
Hindustan Copper Limited Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR686(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Electricity Board.2. The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give them rebate. According to the petitioners, rebate is given by Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'DVC' for the sake of brevity) to the Electricity Board on account of improved power factor. Consequently, the petitioner prays that the Board be directed to forthwith allow rebate to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner made improvements in the power factor, the respondent Board gets benefit of the amended tariff which includes a rebate to be given but that is not being granted whereas as per the Tripartite Settlement, the petitioner is only required to make payment of the actual amount demanded by the Corporation from the Board on account of power supply made to the petitioner including reb...
Data Alloys Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC9; [2003(3)JCR500(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the agreed and admitted dues to the petitioner which the respondents agreed to pay by way of full and final settlement during arbitration proceeding. 3. It appears that the petitioner entered into a contract and undertook two project for pollution control equipment for preventing pollution caused due to process of manufacturing of iron and steel in the Bokaro Steel Plant. The estimated cost of project was Rs. 1,70,96,450/- and 2,25,92,148/-. The petitioner said to have completed the aforesaid project and submitted bills from time to time. The petitioner alleged to have done extra work in addition to the work specified in the said contract. The dispute with regard to payment of the amount covered by the bill was also the subject-matter of arbitration proceeding. It is contended by the petitioner that the parties have agreed for payment of a particular amo...
Gauri Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR674(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Government Pleader No. IV.2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks appropriate direction upon the respondents to treat him as a substantively promoted employee on the post of Class I service of the Animal Husbandry Department w.e.f. March 1986 and to include the name of the petitioner in the final gradation list. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Touring Veterinary Officer in 1959 in the Department of Animal Husbandry and in 1979 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director which is Class II post. In the year 1986 the petitioner along with others was granted promotion in Junior Selection Grade (in Class I service) The petitioner's case is that the promotion given in 1986 was a regular promotion after approval of the departmental promotion committee but arbitrarily the word 'ad hoc' was added in the promotion order. ...
Sarita Narayan Vs. H.E.C. Through the Chairman-cum-managing Director H ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR663(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. When this case was called out, Mr. R. Mukhopadhya, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that he has filed two Supplementary Affidavits pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2003 but due to complete inadvertence, the number of both Supplementary Affidavits has been wrongly mentioned. In the mean time he prays that he may be allowed to make the necessary corrections. He may do so during the course of the day.2. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Mukhopadhya, learned counsel for the Respondents.3. The Writ Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2001 as contained at Annexure-5 passed by the manager (P and A)/Head Quarters by which on the basis of the pre employment medical examination report dated 15.08.1977, the date of birth of the Petitioner was accepted as 15.07.1945.4. The Petitioner has further prayed that the Respondents be directed to accept the date of birth of the Petitioner as 15.09.1948, i.e. the date on...
Dilip Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR671(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner after three years of their termination against the order contained in letter No. 6255 dated 29th August, 1998 whereby the respondents alleged their appointments as illegal.2. According to petitioners, they were engaged on daily wages between 1994-1996 in two newly created works division (Mechanical). Many of the petitioners earlier moved before this Court for regularization of services in which certain directions were issued by the Court. It is alleged that before consideration of the case of petitioners for regularization of their services, the respondents terminated their service vide letter dated 29th August, 1998 without notice and hearing the petitioners.3. Counsel for the petitioners relied on an unreported decision of the Court dated 7th March, 2003 in WP (S) No. 3769 of 2001 (Sanjiv Kumar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. and analogous cases), wherein the Court observed that the petit...
Mathura Sao and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1029; II(2003)DMC578; [2003(2)JCR595(Jhr)]
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 Section 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 appellants No. 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 sho...
Gorakh Nath Upadhayay Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1234; [2003(2)JCR669(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board and Mrs. I. Sen Choudhury, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 10.5.2001 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application, whereby he has been directed to be superannuated with effect from 30.9.1998 taking his age as 26 years on the date of his appointment.3. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Tractor Operators in the year 1964. According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment he disclosed his age as 45 years, which was entered in different records of the respondents. According to the petitioner, in 1964, when he entered in service he was aged about 19 years. In 1965 petitioner also submitted an affidavit stating his date of birth as 6.9.1945. In 1971, service book of the petitioner was opened by the respondents, wherein the age of the petitioner was reco...
Alice Purty Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR666(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard the parties and perused the show cause by the opposite party- contemplated contemnor.2. This contempt arises out of the judgment dated 20th August, 2002, passed in CWJC No. 2162/99R, whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 4 of that writ petition was directed to make payment of all the dues including the leave encashment within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of that judgment and if the payment was not made within that period, then the payment would be made with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment. The respondents were also directed to fix the revised pension and other dues and to advise the A.G. to issue Authority Slip.3. In the original writ, the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, who was the respondent No. 4 in the original writ, has filed the show cause in the capacity of opposite party No. 2. He has stated in paragraph No. 9 that all the admitted retirement benefits has already been paid to t...
Ghane Shyam Mahto and ors. Vs. Damoder Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR388(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents even on repeated calls.2. At the outset, Mr. A.K. Mehta submits that since he has not made the persons enlisted in Annexure-17 as party respondents, he, therefore, does not press the amendment application and he confines the writ application only to the extent prayed for originally at paragraph 1 of the same.3. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has submitted that in the Damoder Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the DVC for sake of brevity), two sets of employees namely the Boilder Turbine Auxiliary (BTA) and Fitter exists in two different cadres altogether. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the BTA cannot be intermingled with the Fitters and notwithstanding the own declaration of the DVC accepting the two cadres as different, they published a draft gradation list where they proceeded to include Fitters in the cadre of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »