Jharkhand Court July 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.
State of Jharkhand Vs. Raman Mahto
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR1460; 2003CriLJ3262; [2003(3)JCR277(Jhr)]
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. All the four appeals along with Death Reference have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment as they are arisen out of the same judgment passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants Ramana Mahto and Kunjal Ganjhu for the offence under Sections 148, 307, 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the other appellants, namely, Natwa Ganjhu, Butan Mahto and Bisna Ganjhu have been convicted under Sections 148, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Butan Mahto, Natwa Ganjhu and Bisna Ganjhu have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas appellant Kunjal Ganjhu has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Pena...
Provatendu Banerjee and anr. Vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR145b(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard both sides.The petitioners, employees of the Eastern Coalfields Limited, retired under a voluntary retirement scheme. They opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme based on the terms of the scheme. The retirements were accepted and they actually retired on 17.9.1994. They were paid the benefits in terms of the scheme. At that time, National Coal Wage Agreement IV was applicable and accordingly, the benefit under the scheme like gratuity, provident fund etc were paid to the petitioners on the basis of the basic pay drawn by them under the National Coal Wage Agreement IV Scheme. The benefit were calculated on the basis and paid.2. After the petitioners retired under the scheme, the Eastern Coalfields Limited adopted National Coal Wage Agreement V in the year 1996. That agreement was to have effect from 1.7.1991. Based on that agreement, the difference in wages and gratuity were paid to the petitioners by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Eastern Coalfields Limited ...
Arihant Sahkari Grih Nirman Samitee Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity B ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR462(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of any of the respondents inspite of repeated calls.2. During the course of arguments, Mr. M.S. Mittal pointed out that the only point which he is raising in this case is that in a common area of a residential multi-storeyed building only domestic tariff would be applicable and not commercial tariff. In support of aforementioned connection, Mr. M.S. Mittal has filed in Court, today, photocopies of 9 (nine) judgments, which shall not form part of records of this case and will be kept as part of the said record. Mr. M.S. Mittal, first of all relies on the judgment delivered in the case of Council for Protection of Public Rights and Welfare v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 853. In that case at paragraph 23, the following question was raised :'Whether levy of Commercial Tariff in the 'common area' of Multi Storeyed Building is valid ?'The answer to the aforementione...
Bihar Rajya Lok Swasthya Abhiyantram Vibhag Karamchari Sangh Zila Sakh ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR288(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate for the State-Respondents.2. From a perusal of the Counter Affidavit and as has been stated at paragraph 6 and as will appear from the cause title of this Writ Application also, it is evident that once again it is the Association which has filed this Writ Application. Upon perusal of the Counter Affidavit, it is also apparent that for the same and similar relief, an earlier Writ Application had been filed by the Vice President of the petitioner being CWJC No. 3831 of 1996(R) which was disposed off giving direction to the Respondents to file adequate representation and the Respondents were directed to dispose off the same in accordance with law within a period of 2 (two) months. Since the Respondents did not dispose off the representation, that action led to filing of a Contempt Application, whereafter the impugned order has been passed.3. Upon perusal of the gri...
Mukti Prasad Rai and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR641(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.2.1994, passed by Sri Alakh Kumar Dubey, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1992/54 of 1992, whereby and whereunder, appellants Bhangi Prasad Rai, Manohar Prasad Rai and Bharat Prasad Rai have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas' appellants Mukti Prasad Rai and Parmeshwar Prasad Rai have been convicted under Section 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life thereunder. Appellant Shakti Prasad Rai has died during the pendency of this appeal. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the First Information Report (Ext. 1/1), lodged by the informant Sikandar Prasad Rai (PW 6) on 13.11.1989 at 20.15 hours, alleging therein, that on the same day at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. pumpkin (Kaddu) of...
Kauleshwar Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR711(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. In this Writ petition, the award of the Labour Court (Annexure-7) made in Reference Case No. 12/1987 dated 25.10.2000 is sought to be quashed. By this award, the Labour Court disposed of the reference on the preliminary issue of non-maintainability of reference and did not consider other issues which had been framed for consideration and adjudication. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the award on the ground that the Labour Court could not have dismissed the Reference on the ground of maintainability as the Labour Court was legally bound to answer the Reference and thus, to adjudicate all the issues that were framed by it after hearing the parties. The learned Labour Court found the Reference not maintainable on the ground that the Reference was stale, 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, the questions to be answered in this writ petition are (i) whether the Labour Court can examine the staleness of the Reference and can dispose of the reference hold...
John Kujur Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR722(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. M.M Shar-ma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Rannerji, J.C. to G.A. 2. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.09.1997 issued under Memo No. 68 as contained at Annexure-3 whereby and whereunder House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as H.R.A.) from April, 1997 to July 1997 and City Allowance for the said period amounting to Rs. 11,370/- paid to him during his period of deputation at Raj Nagar Sub Centre has been ordered to be recovered on the ground that the said amount was excess paid to him. 3. The petitioner, through the Amendment Application filed on 26.04.1999, has also prayed for quashing of Letter No. 3, dated 15.01.1998 as contained in An-nexure-5 which he has appended to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on 26.04.1999 whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 4 has asked the petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken against him for filing the instant Writ Application without...
Raja Ram Sharma Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR5(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Tax Collector of the Ranchi Municipality on 7.10.1960. The normal age of superannuation of an employee of the Ranchi Municipality which was subsequently converted into Ranchi Municipal Corporation, is 58 years. The date of birth given by the petitioner while joining service of the Municipality was 3.6.1943. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years on 2.6.2001. But on 6.10.2000, by communication Annexure 3 he was informed that he has completed 40 years of service and he was being retired. The petitioner has challenged this communication retiring him from service on completion of 40 years of service, but before he attained the age of 58 years.2. The petitioner has relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in Mokhtar Ahmad v. Bihar State Road Transport. 1995 (1) PLJR 183 in support of his submission that he was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of supera...
Gupteshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR317(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, JC to GP-II.2. The case of the Writ Petitioner in the instant case is that having passed the Writer's Constable Examination way back in the year 1970, he became entitled to rank senior to those persons who had not passed the said examination. Yet, the respondents for some reason or the other, promoted other persons who had not even passed the said examination and superseded the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner at an earlier stage moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 3618 of 1996(R) and by Order dated 3.2.1997, he was given liberty to file a representation before the authority concerned who was directed to pass a speaking order within the certain period of time indicated in the Order which is contained at Annexure-1 to this Writ Application. After the aforementioned order had been passed by the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, the Respondent No....
Minerals and Minerals Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar14; [2003(3)JCR265(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner M/s Minerals and Minerals Ltd. prays for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant mining lease to the petitioner as directed by respondent No. 2, Revisional Authority and further for an order restraining respondent No. 3 from doing any mining activities in respect of the aforesaid land pursuant to order passed by Sub-ordinate Judge, 1 Gumla in Title Suit No. 28 of 1992.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that pursuant to a notification issued by Government of Bihar dated 19.10.1968, petitioner applied under Rule 22 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules) for grant of mining lease for Bauxite over an area of 1475 acres in village Blmrla, Barang, Manatu, Korla, Chagra in the district of Ranchi (now Gumla). The said application which was filed on 23.12.68 was not disposed of within 12 months and consequently petitioner filed revision application on 15.4.1970 before the Central Governm...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »