Jharkhand Court June 2003 Judgments
Bihar Foundry and Castings Ltd. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR614(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to treat the contract demand of the petitioner at 10,000 KVA w.e.f. 1st September, 2000 or in the alternative direct the respondents to issue a formal letter of approval enhancing the contract demand from 6,000 KVA to 10,000 KVA w.e.f 1.9.2000 and further a direction be issued to the respondents not to demand any penal charges from September, 2000 because of the excess drawal of power by the petitioner and treating the contract demand at 6,000 KVA. 2. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is a industrial unit engaged in manufacturing steel ingots, ferro alloys etc. Since the units of the petitioner are situated within Damodar Valley falling under the command area of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), the petitioner entered into an agreement in 1989 with respondent No. 1 for supply of electric energy in bulk. The contract demand ...
Tag this Judgment!Jainath Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR517(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen J.1. Heard Mr. T.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Junior Counsel to the. Government Advocate for the State-Respondents and Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.2. The Writ Petitioners has challenged the final order dated 27.04.1993 passed in Land Restoration Case No. 129 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh passed an order direction the Circle Officer to ensure possession of the first party, namely respondent Nos. 4 to 7.3. According to the Writ Petitioners, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (respondent No. 3) after having declined to grant the relief of the restoration of possession in favour of the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 should not have passed such an order which amounts to an act of deciding possession and/or title of the parties to the lis.4. From the submissions made in the Writ Petition, it has been contended inter alia that 1.47 acres of land in khata No. 102 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Sahay and Yatish Kumar Mallick Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR669(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. In these two writ petitions the writ petitioners have been departmentally proceeded in one and the same departmental proceeding on a charge that they did not apply their discretion to recover the hire charges of the machines, while making accounts payment to the contractor/agency, thus, the Government has been put to loss to the tune of Rs. 62.08 Lakhs. The petitioners were Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Department. They were awarded the punishment to the effect that they will not be promoted and further 5 increments with uncumulative effect is withheld vide Annexure-1 in respect of Gopinath Sahay petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 5013 of 2001 and videAnnexure-6 in respect of Yatish Kumar Malliek petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 4993 of 2001. Both these annexures are sought to be quashed on the ground that the enquiry was not made in accordance with law and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to represent their case and, thus, en...
Tag this Judgment!Spriha Steel Private Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR511(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. These two writ applications, filed by the same petitioner in relation to the same subject matter, has been heard and disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner filed CWJC No. 3078 of 1999(R) for quashing the order dated 7.10.1999 passed by Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi Electrical Circle, Ranchi who directed for disconnection of electric line of the petitioner and also for a declaration that the order dated 24.9.1999 issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Bihar State Electricity Board imposing new tariff without making any notification in the official gazette is illegal and against the law.3. Petitioner's case in brief is that it is a Small Scale Industry and is manufacturing MS ingots with an induction furnace having capacity of 3 M. Tons. In 1996, petitioner entered into an agreement with the Board for supply of electricity with a connected load of 1600 KVA. On 7.9.1999 a fresh agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the Board whereby ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Mahto and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR310(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The present appeal arises against the judgment dated 24.7.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 1986 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 436/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 7 years.2. The prosecution case is that in the nigh of 15/16.1.1984 at about 12 O'clock in the night, the informant was sleeping in his house alongwith his family members and at about 12 O'clock in the night he woke up from sleep due to barking of dogs. He peeped through a hole in the door of his room and saw in the light of fire that the accused-appellants were standing in his courtyard and he identified them. He saw fire and flames on the western side of his house. The appellant, Umesh Mahto, Govind Mahto were having farsa in their hands. The appellants Ramlal Mahto, Dasrath Mahto, Nakul Mahto and Gokhul Mahto were having tangi in their hands whereas the appellant Shibu Mahto was having lathi in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kant Mishra and ors. Vs. Sheo Sambhu Giri
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR293(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made an order in Eviction Appeal No. 2/94 by the 4th Addl. District Judge, Chaibasa, Shri Prashant Kumar, who by the said first appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the original Court in Eviction Suit (T) No. 4/90.2. The plaintiff appellant had filed a suit for eviction and for realization of the arrears of rent from the defendant-tenant, who was a tenant in the suit premises described in the Schedule A of the plaint with Holding No. 133 and 144 situated in Ward No. 2 of the town Chakradharpur consisting of three pucca rooms, two rooms with khaparpoah roof, one big room, lobi etc. on the grounds, inter alia, (a) default in payment of rent, (b) personal requirement of the suit premises and (c) damage of the suit premises by the defendant. On contest, the learned original Court came to decisions that (i) there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant (2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Bp Solar India Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC163; 2003(2)BLJR1452; [2003(3)JCR611(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of Tender Notice dated 11th April, 2003 issued by the 2nd Respondent, The Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi (for short 'Corporation'), whereby and where-under, tenders have been called for only from Government of India Enterprises who have executed similar Government aided projects in remote areas to install solar power lighting systems in the Government Tribal Residential Schools and Hostels.2. The petitioner, BP Solar India Limited, a Private Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having not come within the zone to apply for tender, has challenged the proposals/Tender Notice dated 11th April, 2003, as illegal, arbitrary and void. 3. According to the petitioner, it is not only a manufacturer and distributor of solar power systems, but it also designs, develops, manufactures, installs, commissions and give services of photovolta...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen Represented by Secretary Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Hirapur V ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR638(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner who are the workmen represented by the Secretary, Bihar, Colliery Kamgar Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad has come against the award dated 31st January, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 152 of 1992 whereby the tribunal has answered the reference against the workmen but held that the management can not refuse to keep the concerned workmen in employment as casual mazdoors as and when occasion will arise but as a matter of right they cannot claim their engagement in future. 2. It appears that the appropriate government in exercise of its power conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the tribunal for adjudication : 'Whether the action of the management of M/s. Coal Mines Planning and Design Institute Ltd. in terminating the services of the workmen S/Shri Dadan Prasad, Somnath Biswas and Anil Kumar Pd. Survey Mazdoors w.e.f. 24.2.198...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Mehta Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR608(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the short question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner is liable to pay difference amount of the excise duty on the Indian made foreign liquor pursuant to increase in duty by notification dated 10.8.2000. 2. Petitioner was issued a wholesale licence for trading in Indian made foreign liquor and beer in the year 1990-91 which was time to time renewed. Petitioner said to have deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance licence fee for the year 2002-03. However, the petitioner received a notice from the respondents Informing him that the Accountant General Bihar and Jharkhand in its inspection report have pointed out that a sum of Rs. 8,41,502.70 being difference of excise duty on account of enhancement was due from the petitioner and therefore he is liable to deposit the said amount. On receipt of the said notice petitioner filed representation before respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Excise, Singhbhum West, Jharkhand stating i...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Joshi and ors. and Praful Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR602(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Both these Crl. Misc. Petitions arise out of the single order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 720 of 2000 whereby and whereunder learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Section 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of this fact, both these criminal misc. petitions are being disposed by a single order.2. O.P. No. 2 Kamala Pd. Oza of both the criminal misc. petitions filed complaint case against the petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions alleging therein that he (complainant) met Praful Joshi and his wife Smt. Anusuiya Joshi @ Annu, both petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 322 of the 2003, at Jamshedpur in a social function and desired to search a bridegroom for his unmarried daughter Nailini Oza, aged about 20 years. The petitioners expressed their desire that they are also in search of a suitable bride for their son. Accordingly they agreed for marriage negotiation of the son of petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »