Jharkhand Court May 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.
Binay Mukherjee and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR490(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision against the order dated 6.10.2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by these petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging them, has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on the written information, given by the informant Pradeep Kumar Chatterjee, alleging therein, that his daughter Pampa Mukherjee was married with Partho Mukherjee (not petitioner) on 28th February, 1997. Soon after the marriage, these petitioners and Partho Mukherjee, husband of Pumpa Mukherjee, started torturing her for dowry. The informant filed a complaint against these petitioners and Partho Mukherjee on 13.8.1998. On 22.11.2000 he received telephonic message from L.N. Studio that his daughter had sustained burn injury at about 7.00 p.m. and was taken to General Hospital, Bokaro....
Ali Akhtar Quadri Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1219
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Annexure-2 by which the petitioner, who was the Mutawalli of Shikh Quadir Bakhsh Waqf Estate, Giridih, was removed from the post of Mutawalli on the ground of misappropriation of the income of the Waqf properties and in place of the petitioner, a Committee was constituted to work as Mutawalli has been sought to be quashed in this writ petition. This order has been passed by the Chairman, Wakf Board, Patna, on 9-5-1998 and, according to the respondents, the same had been communicated by the Secretary of the Board.2. The main ground for seeking the quashing of the impugned order is that the order was without jurisdiction as the Chairman had no legal authority to pass the same.3. The aggrieved respondents appeared and contested the writ petition. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been rightly removed by the Chairman, who had the delegated power under Section 27 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the order was communicated by the Secretary of the Board. The ...
Motilal Saw and ors. Vs. A.K. Chouhan, Director-cum-secretary of Healt ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR456(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pradeep Modi, learned G.P.I for the opposite parties.2. The instant Contempt Application has been filed for non- compliance of the Judgment delivered by this Court on 19.6.2002 in CWJC No. 754 of 2002 (R). By reason of the said Judgment two basic directions had been made and they are that the respondents were directed to forthwith release and pay the entire arrears of their salary for the periods they worked together with interest at the rate of 10%. The other direction was that the respondents would reconsider the case of the petitioners and take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.3. Both the parties agree that so far as the first direction is concerned i.e. In relation to payment of entire arrears of salary together with 10% interest, the same has been complied with. So far as the second direction is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the t...
The Tinplate Company of India Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR1666; [2003(3)JCR317(Jhr)]; [2006]143STC560(Jharkh)
ORDER1. This application has been filed by the petitioner for modification/ clarification of the order dated 10.5.2002 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2857 of 2000 (R) and the petitioner by the said modification/clarification desires the addition of the word 'and other Cold Rolled Product' after the word 'TMBP' in the last but one line in para 13 at page 23 of the judgment.2. For the sake of clarity I quote the relevant sentence appearing in-para 13 at page 23 of the judgment :--'Based upon the facts aforesaid and the interpretation of clause 15.4 of S.O. 478 read with Clause (GA) of S.O. 57 dated 2nd March, 2000 the petitioner is entitled to full exemption in respect of the sales tax paid on the purchase of the raw materials i.e., HR coils for the production of the new product i.e., TMBP which was not earlier produced in the unit of the petitioner for manufacture of ETP.'3. The petitioner had earlier filed CWJC No. 2857 of 2000 (R) or issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of cer...
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR762(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard both sides.2. This is an application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the petitioner, a Contractor, disputes have arisen and in terms of Clauses 24 and 25 of the Agreement between the parties, it had sought the appointment of Arbitrators. The petitioner had also named an arbitrator and had called upon the respondents to name an arbitrator. They have failed to respond. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claims of the contractor are unsustainable and are barred and the request for arbitration is also barred by time.3. In the light of the decision in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 388, these objections can be raised by the respondents before the Arbitrators, who will be bound to decide those objections while arbitrating on the disp...
Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs. Chancellor of Universities and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR472(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This is a petition filed by the respondents in the appeal praying for modification or clarification of the judgment passed by this Court in the appeal on 29.1.2003. The modification or clarification sought for is to the extent of deleting the observations regarding the scope of Section 9(7)(ii) of the Bihar, Universities Act, now adopted by the State of Jharkhand.3. The factual background leading to this petition is as follows :--The writ petitioner was working as a computer operator in Ranchi University. He was dismissed from service. His dismissal was based on a direction issued by the Vice-chancellor to remove him from service on the ground that his appointment was irregular. Thereupon the Vice-chancellor even without giving any notice to the writ petitioner, dismissed him from service. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court with the writ petition CWJC No. 822 of 2000, seeking the quashing of the order of dismissal inter alia, on the ground that t...
State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Ashok Tiwari
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR231(Jhr)]; (2004)IILLJ715Jhar
1. The respondents in CWJC No. 4653 of 1996 are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, was appointed as a typist. His services were terminated. An Industrial Dispute was raised challenging the termination. It was numbered as Reference Case No. 7/1989. The question was whether the termination of the writ petitioner was unjustified and if it was unjustified, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. Even though the reference was pending adjudication on 10.7.1989, the writ petitioner was reinstated in the post which he was holding prior to the termination. In the award dated 5.12.1990, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the termination of the writ petitioner was done without complying with the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, therefore, held that the termination was unjustified and illegal. While taking note of the reinstatement with effect from 10.7.1989 the Labour Co...
Doman Bedia Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR734(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. The sole appellant named above has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.1998 and the order dated 28.1.1998 passed in ST No. 66 of 1990 by Shri Dilip Kumar Sinha, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI. for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 7) of PW 4, Babu Ram Bedia, the informant recorded by Sri J.R. Singh, S.I. Bharkunda P.S. on 29.7.1989 at 12.30 hours at Bharkunda P.S. regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place in t...
Baleshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR730(Jhr)]
Tapan Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. SauravArun, learned counsel for the Petitioner andMrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for theRespondents.2. In this Writ Application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication dated 20.3.1996 as contained at Annexure-6 by which the Petitioner has been informed that since he could not secure the qualifying marks in the D.P.C. held on 26.10.1995 for purposes of promotion from the M-1 to M-2 Grade, the D.P.C., therefore, had not recommended his case for promotion. The Petitioner farther prays that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding upon the Respondents to promote the Petitioner from M-l to M-2 Grade on the ground that juniors have been given promotion without considering his case. The Petitioner further submits that under the provisions of Rule 4.7(c) of the Common Coal Cadre, he was entitled to promotion, having completed three continuous years of service in the M-1 Grade.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it has been stated,...
Central Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Deoraj Bartiya
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR496(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent in detail.2. The appellant-Management, which was respondent No. 1 CWJC No. 2604 of 1995(R), has challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge therein to the extent it directed the Management to give a decision as to whether, notwithstanding the earlier Award passed by the tribunal it would still like to proceed further and only thereafter to proceed to deal with the merits of the charge issued by the Management.3. The learned Single Judge set aside the punishment imposed by the management on the ground that the relevant enquiry report, inspite of demand in that behalf, was not handed over to the workman (the respondent herein) and observed that it was open to the Management to proceed with the matter in accordance with the directions of the learned Single Judge as contained in Paragraph 7 of the judgment, as supplemented by the observations/ directions contained in Paragraph 8 of the judgment. If is submitted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›