Jharkhand Court August 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.
Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR227(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.3.2003, Passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 4554 of 2001. The limitation for filing the appeal expired on 15.4.2003, Whereas it was filed on 22.4.2003. Hence, IA No. 1079 of 3003 at flag 'L' has been filed for condonation of the said delay in filing the appeal. After hearing the parties and perusing the I.A at flag 'L' we find that the aforesaid seven days' delay has been properly explained and as such the delay is hereby condoned. Another LA. No. 1078 of 2003 has also been filed by the appellant for addition of Sri Kamlesh Kumar, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Dumka as party-respondent in this appeal. Though the appellant had challenged the promotion of Sri Kumar to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the year 1992 in the writ petition, but he was not made a party therein. In such circumstance, the prayer to add Shri Kamlesh Kumar in this appeal as party respondent is rejected at this stage.2. The appell...
Prakash Chandra Sinha Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR165(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 brought in its wake the problem of cadre division in various services, including the All India Service in the undivided State of Bihar. In view of the bifurcation of the State the cadres had to be divided and separate allotment made in the reoganized State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. As per Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, as soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government had to determine by special or general order, the successor State to which every person, who immediately before the appointed day, was serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar, the final allotment for service and the date with effect from which such allotment was to take effect. The appointed day was 15.11.2000, when the separate States came into existence. As regards the State Civil Services and the State Police Service, the Central Government made the final allocation by way of notificatio...
Kameshwar Singh Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR445(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. On the basis of the judgment passed in Letter Patent Appeal No. 157 of 1991 (R) on 4.4.1995, and on the basis of conduct of the respondents, the petitioner in this writ petition, seeks a declaration that he is a regular employee from the date of the said judgment i.e. April 1995 and be paid salary, etc. accordingly.2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 1985 and in a departmental proceeding he was found guilty and accordingly was dismissed on 4.6.1986. The appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected. The petitioner moved the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna and proceeding for conciliation was allegedly taken. It appears that the petitioner offered to forego his back wages and withdraw the proceeding before the Deputy Labour Commissioner if he is employed again. By order dated 14.9.1988 the petitioner was re-engaged on the same terms and conditions without any salary for the intervening period.3. There was another disciplinary proceeding. The petiti...
Mittal Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR416(Jhr)]; [2005]141STC257(Jharkh)
ORDER1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner claims that it is entitled to have a prior permission to expand/ modernize its industry and consequently avail the benefits allowed under the notifications issued in that behalf.2. The following facts are relevant :The erstwhile Government of Bihar announced an Industrial Policy 1995 which was to remain in force between 1.9.1995 to 31.8.2000. To carry out the objectives of the said policy, certain notifications were issued. Under Notification Nos. SO 478 and 479 (both dated 22.12.1995) certain ex-emption from payment of sales tax were to be allowed to the new industrial-units, and also the existing industrial units intending expansion/diversification/modernization, provided the production is started between 1.9.1995 to 3.1.8.2000.3. The petitioner as an existing unit undertook an expansion programme. On expanded capacity the unit was allowed exemption from the date of such production i.e. 17.9.1996 for eight years i.e. upto 16.9.2004...
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR532(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue fresh cheque in lieu of cheque No. 588843 dated 13.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 63.91,402 against the passed bill for package No. 23 of Rania Block together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of issuance of fresh cheque.3. It appears that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Chotanagpur and Santhai Pargana Division for construction of rural roads and bridges in Rania Block vide agreement No. BPDP/ REO/23/96-97-46 dated 4.3.1997. The petitioner executed the work. After completing all the formalities i.e., verification and measurements of the works the petitioner submitted bills and the Executive Engineer issued cheque for a sum of Rs. 63,91,402/-vide cheque No. 588843 dated 13.11.2000 against the works certified.4. In the meantime the State of Jharkhand cam...
Smt. Sandhya Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR503(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.12.1994 passed by the respondents whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service after holding a departmental inquiry.2. The facts of the ease lie in narrow compass.3. Petitioner's husband namely, Sri Snehasis Mukherjee was in the service of the respondents as Assistant Surveyor and was posted in the office of Ena Colliery. All of a sudden he became traceless since 1.3.1982 and his whereabouts was not at all known to the petitioner or any relatives. Petitioner finding her husband missing reported the matter to the police and also got a notice published in the newspaper. Petitioner ultimately approached the respondents and made an application on 22.12.1932 for her appointment, so that she could earn her livelihood. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondents against, the husband of the petitioner for his unauthorized absence and after holding an inquiry, he was dismissed from serv...
Dinkar Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR134(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners. State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand.2. As the case requires determination by the respondents at the first instance, it is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the parties.3. According to the petitioners, they performed the duties of Non-formal Education Supervisors in different Projects in the districts of Godda; Pakur and Sahebganj. Subsequently, they were retrenched, the Projects having closed. During the period, they worked, they were provided with honorarium/men days, but they have not been provided with the same for the period 1985 to 21st December, 1994.4. Counsel for, the State of Jharkhand submitted that the matter is to be looked into by the competent authority of the State of Bihar, Certain amounts have been sanctioned for those who were posted in the territory of the State of Bihar.5. The counsel for the State of Bihar submitted that the records are with the authorities in the districts of G...
Sita Ram Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR347(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to treat the period of his suspension i.e. from April 1986 to November 1990 on duty and to pay full salary are allowance for the said period.3. It appears that in the year 1986 while petitioner was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Patherdih Road-Police Station, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and punishment by way of two Black Marks forfeiting the pay and allowance was passed. The said order was confirmed by D.I.G. of Police, Patna in the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 1795 of 1991 (R). A Division Bench of the Patna High Court quashed the order of punishment and directed the respondents to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness already examined by the enquiring officer behind his back and to reconduct the departmental proceeding. Respondents instead of reconducting the...
Akshay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR173(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This appeal by respondent No. 5 in WP (C) No. 1514 of 2002 against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 was filed on 18.2.2003. Going by the certified copy of the judgment under appeal accompanying the memorandum of appeal, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 31.10.2002. Hence, it was delayed. The fact that the appeal was belated was pointed out by the Registry while pointing out the defects and calling upon the appellant to remove the same. Inspite of it, the appellant did not even bother to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay, leave alone making out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It may be noted that the appeal came up on 3.3.2003 and again on 21.3.2003 and thereafter on 15.4.2003. Inspite of it, no attempt was made to file an application for condoning the delay. Such an obdurate persistence in not filing the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal cannot be overlooked....
Sai Electro Casting Private Ltd. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR793(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, CJ.1. This is an appeal by respondent No. 6 WP (C) No. 1514 of 2002 on the file of this Court. That writ petition was filed by the Damodar Valley Corporation (herein after referred to as DV Corporation) praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to stop illegal and wrongful supply of electrical energy to its consumers at 30,000 volts or more, without permission of the DV Corporation and to restrain the illegal supply of electricity in violation of the provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, to consumers and especially to a defaulting consumer respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. The writ petition having been allowed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by respondent No. 6 challenging that decision. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of ingots by melting sponge iron and pig iron. In October, 2000, the appellant approached the DV Corporation, which generates and supplies electricit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »