Jharkhand Court June 2003 Judgments
Prabhat Talkies Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar89; [2003(3)JCR637(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for cancelling the licence granted in favour of M/s Kamla Video Hall (respondent No. 5) vide orders dated 20.11.1995 and 18.12.1995 (Annexure 6 and 7 respectively) under the Provisions of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1974, and for directing the State and its authorities to prevent the respondent No. 5 from illegally exhibiting 'home viewing' cassettes and uncensored films in its Video Paralour.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the M/s Kamla Video Hall (respondent No. 5) raised some preliminary objection. Firstly, he submitted that the proprietor of the petitioner namely Smt. Gangajali Devi has died during the pendency of this writ petition. No substitution having been made, the writ petition cannot proceed any further. Secondly, the licence granted vide impugned order dated 18.12.1995 (Annexure 7) having expired on 9.12.1996, this writ has become infructous.4. It is true that the petitioner should have ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Prasad Shukla @ Mahesh Shukla Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR710(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner in the instant case is that without complying with the mandatory requirements in relation to three months notice or without paying him an amount equal to three months payment and allowance in lieu thereof and without also constituting the proper Medical Board under the Chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer, the respondents have compulsorily retired the petitioner. 3. Upon perusal of Annexure-C appended to the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the Medical Officer, Bihar Military Police upon examination of the petitioner and other persons came to the conclusion that the petitioner was suffering for the last two years from contagious Leprosy and that his right leg and hands had become totally ineffective. He also found the petitioner incapable of moving around. In that view of the matter, the concerned Medical Officer fo...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Sudamdih Coal of B.C.C.L. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Cen ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR334(Jhr)]
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.8.2001, passed by the learned single Judge, in W.P. (L) No. 2429 of 2001, whereby order dated 1.3.2001 passed in L.C. Application No. 20 of 1996 by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (thereinafter to be referred to as the Act') was affirmed.2. Against the award dated 25.6.1992, the Appellant moved this Court in-CWJC No. 1980 of 1993(R), which was dismissed on 17.1.1994 and the S.L.P. No. 18092 of< 1994 filed in the Apex Court was also dismissed as withdrawn on 7.11.1994 and the said award became final.3. The workmen filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, for computation of the benefit in terms of the said award, which was registered as L.C. Application No. 20 of 1996 before the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Labour Court, Dhanbad. On 1.3.2001, the Labour Court ordered that the computation of the monetary benefits be made as per the award passed in Reference No....
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Md. Muzammil Sultan
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR446(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand and others, against the order dated 15.7.2002, passed by learned Single Judge, in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 745 of 2001. According to stamp report dated 28.1.2003, limitation for filing the appeal expired on 14.8.2002, whereas it was filed on 28.1.2003, I.A. No. 206 of 2003 at flag 'L' has, therefore, been filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the aforesaid delay, wherein the detailed explanation has been furnished. We are satisfied that the appellants have property explained the aforesaid delay caused in filing the appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned.2. Md. Muzammil Sultan, the sole respondent was working on the post of typist, on daily wage in the office of the Conservator of Forest, State Trading Circle, Hazaribagh (West). According to him, a list of the candidates, including him, who were working on daily wage for the last so many years was prepared, pursuant to the Government notification dat...
Tag this Judgment!Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Gover ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR428(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Mr. V. Shivnath Challenges the final Award in this case only to the extent it relates to the direction for payment of 75% back wages together with all benefits till date of superannuation. He does not challenge the Award in so far as it relates to reinstatement.3. At the stage of deciding the preliminary issue on the fairness of the domestic inquiry, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad came to a conclusion that the departmental inquiry held prior to the order of dismissal was fair and proper. He also held that he found much force in the plea of the Management to the effect that there were no lacunae in conducting the departmental inquiry and that the workman had himself specifically recorded that he was fully satisfied with the same.4. Mr. V. Shivnath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Indian Builders and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR718(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, CJ.1. The revision petitioners, the State of Jharkhand and its officers have filed this revision challenging the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by them under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondent No. 2 therein, while he was in service, had been appointed as the Arbitrator in his capacity as the Chief Engineer. While proceeding with the arbitration, he appears to have claimed fees as Arbitrator from the State. He collected it on the assertion that even though he was an employee of the State he was entitled to collect the arbitration fee also. The State objected to his continuing with the arbitration proceedings on the ground that he has misconducted himself because of his claiming arbitration fees while he was in service and sought his removal. The State also expressed an apprehension that in view of the stand adopted by the State, the Arbitrator would not be fair. The Arbitrator himself having rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Dewanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR720(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. S.R Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned G.P. 11 for the State-respondents. 2. In the instant Writ Application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.08.1997 as contained at An-nexure 1 by which the petitioner has been informed that her application for compassionate appointment to the post of Grade IV (Peon) in the judgeship of Singhbhum (West) has been rejected. 3. The petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate Writ commanding upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on any suitable post on compassionate considerations. 4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband late Abdul Khalil Khan (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'Khan') sustained severe burn injuries and consequently died in the Sakchi Hospital at Jamsedpur on 26.08.1993. He according to the petitioner, was employed as a Peon at the relevant time in the Judgeship of Singhbhum West ...
Tag this Judgment!Mageya Hessa Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR650(Jhr)]
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th June, 2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chalbasa, in Session Trial No. 306 of 1991 whereby and whereunder, the learned Court below convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Bihari Lal Hessa gave his fardbayan alleging therein that on 17.2.1987 at about 11 p.m., he along with his wife was sleeping in his house and on hearing hulla of his father, he came out of room with torch light and saw the accused persons Mageya Hessa (appellant) and Renso Hessa and both were assaulting his father with Jarsa. He tried to save his father but Renso Hessa assaulted him with farsa on his neck. It is also alleged that his father died due to assault by the accused causing injuries on his neck. He raised alarm and thereafter both t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Murari Goel Vs. Kameshwar Kumhar and Jagdish Kumhar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR133(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Heard both sides.2. This revision at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner is against the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Court below in Title Suit No. 7 of 1983 whereby the Court below allowed the application dated 18.11.2002 filed on behalf of the defendant. The main point raised on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner is that an earlier application filed in that behalf had been rejected in 1989. The present application was, therefore, barred by the principles of res judicata.3. After all, when the Court appoints a Survey Commissioner for local inspection, the Court is only gathering material that may be relevant for enabling it to render a decision more satisfactory to its conscience. The report of the Commissioner is after all only an item of evidence subject to the rights of the parties to establish facts which would contradict that report, or to cross-examine the Commissioner and bring out other relevant facts which may have impact on the m...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. Vs. State of J ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)BLJR1467; [2003(3)JCR302(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand issued an order No. 52 dated 23rd November, 2001 under Sections 41 and 42 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 declaring the Ranchi dairy, Ranchi, Bokaro dairy, Bokaro, Jamshedpur dairy, Jamshedpur and Cattle Feed Factory, Ranchi of Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as COMFED) as immovable and movable properties of the State of Jharkhand. The Chief Executive Officer/ Manager of the dairies and Cattle Feed Factory, Ranchi were directed to function under the control of Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand with immediate effect.2. The Managing Director, COMFED by letter No. 7035 dated 26/27th November, 2001 informed the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand that the provision of Sections 41 and 42 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 relates to divisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »