Jharkhand Court August 2003 Judgments
Shankar Bose Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 2 and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR683(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has, prayed for quashing of the award dated 30.9.1999 passed in Reference Case No. 5 of 1997 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. II) at Dhanbad whereby and whereunder he has held that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman was legal and justified and consequently he was not entitled tp any relief.2. The facts which appear from the award are that the concerned workman while posted as a Head Clerk in the Bhalgora Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, was served with a charge-sheet in relation to allegations of misconduct pertaining to theft, fraud and dishonesty. The allegations were that while he was assigned the duties and responsibilities of processing employment files in the year 1991 of the said Bhalgora Area, he dealt with 6 (six) letters containing list of workmen/candidates numbering 319. He was entrusted with the duty of preparing appointment letters in respect of those candidates w...
Tag this Judgment!Jagbandhu Nandi and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-30-2003
Reported in: II(2004)DMC531
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties on I.A. No. 682 of 2003 and I.A. No. 681 of 2003.2. A prayer has been made in I.A. No. 682 of 2003 to implead Chaitali Nandi, who is the informant of this case, as opposite party. It has been submitted that she had filed a complaint petition against her petitioner-husband, Jagbandhu Nandi and others under Sections 498A, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code which was referred to the police for institution and submission of final form and thereafter charge-sheet has been submitted in that case and the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed and as against that they have preferred this revision before this Court. It has also been submitted that she is a necessary party in this revision in view of the settled law that no order to the prejudice of an accused or any other person can be made unless the said accused or the said p...
Tag this Judgment!Prime Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR527(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Avishek Kumar, JC to the learned Advocate General appears for the State of Jharkhand.2. The petitioner, in the instant case, has challenged the communication/order dated 13.2.2002 as contained in Anenxure 7 passed by the Managing Director of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and precision as 'the authority'), whereby and whereunder the lease of the land measuring 2.00 acres being Plot No. M-50 which was allotted to the petitioner in the fourth phase for setting up an industry was cancelled in purported exercise of powers under Sections 6(2-a) and (2-b) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1991. The aforementioned two sections, according to Mr. R.C.P. Sah, were introduced by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (Amendment) ...
Tag this Judgment!Babujan Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR676(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 25th July, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, whereby and whereunder, the application of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is overage.2. The case of petitioner is that his father late Md. Hadish, who was in the services of the State, died in harness on 20th August, 1,996, leaving behind two wives, two sons and two daughters. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form on 7th November, 1996. When it was not considered, the petitioner had to move before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2590 of 1999{R) which was remitted to the respondents on 6th April, 2001 for consideration of his case. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Gumla thereafter rejected his claim for compassionate appointment, relying upon circular No. 1600 dated 4th February, 1991.3. Counsel for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Das Ajmera Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR98b(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree made in Title Suit No. 16/15 of 1975/1976 by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad.2. There is one pacca building having five rooms, servant rooms etc as described in the schedule of the plaint in plot No. 198 of Mauza Patherdih being Mauza No. 162 under Khata No. 52. The plaintiff filed a title suit for a decree for eviction of the defendant from the aforesaid premise and also for arrears of rent from 17.10.1971 to date and pendent lite. The case of the plaintiff is that by a registered deed of sale (Ext-4) dated 19.3.1964 he had purchased 33 dismals of land in plot No. 198 of Mauza Patherdih being Mauza No. 162 under Khata No. 52 from Shri Hazarilal Shahu for a valuable consideration thereafter he constructed one pacca house consisting of five rooms etc over that for which Jharia Water Board had sanctioned water supply. After the construction of the buildin...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, La ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR207(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. The petitioner (M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited) has filed the instant writ application challenging the Award dated 3.1.2000 (pronounced on 9.9.2000) in Reference Case No. 7 of 1991 (Annexure 1) which has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby and where-under, he held that the correct date of birth of the concerned workman is 1.3.1937 and, therefore, this termination by way of superannuation was wrong and unjustified. He, accordingly, set aside the said Award and directed the management to pay all back wages together with consequential benefits treating him to be in service till 28.2.1997.2. The case, briefly stated, is that the concerned workman was employed from 28.2.1961 as a Welder in the Automobile Division of the Company and at the time of his employment, he had stated and declared his date of birth as 1.3.1937. According to him, he was sent for medical check up before joining and the Chief Medical Officer exa...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Kumar Sinha Vs. Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR305(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order dated 10/11.5.2001 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Personnel Manager by which promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Personnel Manager in E-4 grade with effect from 23.9.1997 has been cancelled on account of pendency of another departmental proceeding and further for a direction upon the respondents to refund the total amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner on account of his working in E-4 grade.2. Petitioner's case is that he was granted promotion in E-4 grade in pursuance of the order-dated 2.6.1998. The said promotion granted with effect from 23.9.1997. It is contended by the petitioner that he was entitled to promotion in E-4 grade with effect from 23.9.1997 but the said promotion was not given because of pendency of departmental proceeding against him. The said departmental proceeding was concluded by exonerating the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Tirupati Wires Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR228(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No, 5785 of 2002 on the file of this Court. The petitioner filed that writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to accept the deposit of security money in terms of Clause 15.3 of the 1993. Tariff in the shape of National Savings Certificate and not to insist on the deposit of security in cash as contemplated by Clause 15.3 (e) of the tariff. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and that dismissal is challenged in this appeal.2. There is no dispute that under the 1993 Tariff governing the parties security in terms of cash for an amount equal to an estimated average consumption for three months or the minimum guaranteed consumption had to be paid by any consumer who sought a fresh connection for supply of electrical energy. But according to the appellant, that position is changed in view of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR623(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 5.8.2002 passed by respondent No. 4 Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Region, Hazaribagh, whereby while setting aside the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner, substituted the punishment by stopping his annual increments for the next 15 years.2. Petitioner who was in the service of the respondents as a Constable was suspended vide order dated 29.2.2002 and the departmental proceeding was initiated after holding departmental inquiry and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, petitioner was asked second show cause which was submitted by him. Finally respondent No. 5 Superintendent of Police, Giridih dismissed the petitioner from his service vide order dated 18.3.2002. Petitioner as per the provisions of the Police Manual preferred appeal before respondent No. 4 who is the appellate authority. The appellate authori...
Tag this Judgment!Sudist NaraIn Thakur Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar91; II(2004)BC50; [2003(4)JCR725(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The main question that falls for consideration in this writ application is whether the respondents-Bihar State Financial Corporation is entitled to charge interest on the sanctioned amount of loan from the date of sanction or from the date when the actual possession of the assets have been delivered to the petitioner.2. It appears that the unit of M/s. Bihar Wood Product, Daltonganj was auction sold by the respondent-Corporation and the bid of the petitioner was accepted. Out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,31,250/- within the stipulated time as per the agreement. After issuance of sale order an agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation on 31.1.1995 and on the same day actual physical possession of the premises was given to the petitioner. After handing over possession of the premises the petitioner started making re-payment of the amount to the Corporation. The petitioner lear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »