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.
National Coal Workers Congress Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR185(Jhr)]; (2004)IILLJ550Jhar
ORDER1. The Central Government refused to refer a dispute sought to be raised by the writ petitioner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the claim was stale. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no period of limitation as such for raising a dispute. May be so, but, that does not mean that in an appropriate case the Central Government or the appropriate Government can not come to a conclusion that a particular claim was stale and hence it does not deserve to be referred under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. We find on the facts that the claim was rather stale. Remembering that we are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Central Government and we are exercising only a certiorari jurisdiction, we are satisfied that no interference is called for. We also feel that the view taken by us is supported by the decisions in Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002) 2 SCC 455 and Secretary, Indian T...
Rohit D'Cruz Vs. Xaviers Labour Relations Institute and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR45(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.2003 issued by respondent No. 3, Dr. E.M. Rao, Dean (Academics) and Professor (PM & IR) Xaviers Labour Relations Institute directing the petitioner to withdraw from the Personal Management Course and further prayed for re-evaluation of his result after giving consideration to the recommendation of the Member Placement Committee and also permit him to continue his course.2. Petitioner joined the course of Personal Management and Industrial Relations (PM & IR) in the Xaviers Labour Relations Institute (in short XLRI) at Jamshedpur in the Academic Session 2002-2004 and was allotted Roll No. 37. Petitioner's case is that due to the nature of the duties assigned to him by the Committee he missed several classes due to the late hours he had to put in being in the logistic team and would often have to run to the railway station at odd hours, escort company representatives to and from rai...
Deonandan Chaudhary and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR708(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.2.2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 152 of 1993 by Shri Ram Babu Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. II, Deoghar whereby whereunder the appellants along with co-accused Jim-medar Chaudhary were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 337, 341, 353, 323 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted but they were released on an executing bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for a period of two years to maintain peace and be of good behaviour. However, co-accused Jimmedar Chaudhary was released on due admonition. The appellants were, however found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code though no specific finding in respect thereof stands recorded in the impugned judgment.2. The prosecution has arisen on the basis of the written report of Surya Kant Jha, A.S.I., Jasidih...
Md. Arif Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1887; [2003(3)JCR807(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401, Cr PC is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as also by the appellate Court in G.R.Case No. 744/1991 T.R. No. 696/1995 and in Cr. Appeal No. 41/96 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa and Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, respectively.2. The trial Court convicted the revisionist for an offence under Section 498-A, IPC and awarded a punishment of 3 years and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence of punishment. Originally, the other in-laws were also tried along with the revisionist, but they had already been acquitted by the trial Court itself.3. The prosecution case arose out of the fact that the informant, PW 3, Modina Khatoon, lodged a written statement before the police, Ext. 1, stating therein that she had been married with the revisionist on 4.11.1990 and thereafter some documents of marriage were prepared and thereaf...
Pathak Tribhuvan Singh and ors. Vs. Kameshwar Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR562(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of defendants-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1988 and 6.8.1988 respectively passed in title appeal No. 17 of 1983 by Shri Satyendra Singh 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1983 and 24.3.1983 respectively passed in title suit No. 47 of 1979 by Additional Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj was reversed.2. The plaintiffs-respondent had filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of their title and recovery of possession along with mesne profits in respect of the suit land fully detailed in Schedule of the plaint which is eastern 27 1/3 decimals of land of plot No. 369, khata No. 28 situate in village Marang, P.S. Panki, District Palamau.3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that plot No. 369 aforesaid appertaining to khata No. 28 having an area of 82 decimals is the raiyati land jointly ...
Aditya Puri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ189Jhar
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated December 12, 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and directed to issue summons to the accused persons named in the complaint petition (annexure-4). There were two accused persons namely, (1) Sudeep Kumar Ghosh, Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. at Main Road, Ranchi and (2) Sri Aditya Puri, Chairman-cum-Managing Director at Kamala Mills compound Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. It is alleged in the complaint petition that on September 13, 2002 the office of the company at Ranchi was inspected by the; officials of the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi and they detected (i) the accused persons executing ...
Ramay Gope @ Rameshwar Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR88(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal has been directed by the appellant named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.1.2003 and 16.1.2003 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2000 by Shri Binod Prasad Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1. Chaibasa, whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 and in default to undergo RI for six months and the appellant was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 3) of PW 1, Raday Bodra lodged before Muffasil PS Chaibasa on 29.10.1999 at 11.30 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 25.10.1999 at 18.00 hours in the room inside the ho...
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1892; [2003(3)JCR560(Jhr)]
1. These writ petitions by the Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') challenge the certificate proceedings initiated under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of royalty allegedly payable by the Company under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Development Act). Admittedly, the petitioner company is extracting minerals from the mines made over to it by an order under Section 5 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act on the vesting of the right of the mine owners on the Union Government under Section 3 of the Nationalisation Act. Admittedly, there is liability in the petitioner to pay royalty. The dispute is about the extent of that liability. More specifically, the dispute is whether royalty has to be paid on the quantum of mineral taken out by the Company from the mines or it is to be calculated on the mineral removed by the Company from the leased area, mean...
Drapa Narayan Singh Deo Vs. Ajit Narayan Singh Deo and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR2170; [2003(3)JCR554(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1993, passed in F.A. No. 13 of 1984 (R) by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1983 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa in T.S, No. 49/1992.2. The appellant (plaintiff) filed this suit for partition claiming his half share in the suit properties. The case of the appellant in brief is that the parties are governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law in the matter of inheritance and succession. Schedule 'A' properties in the suit are the 'Nij-Jote' lands and Schedule 'B' and 'C' properties are homestead lands belonging to the father of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1). In other words the case of the appellant is that the suit properties are the private properties of the father of himself and respondent No. 1 and therefore, he is entitled to his half share in the suit properties on partition. The furth...
Kunal Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR317(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. As the matter relates to admission in M.B.B.S. Course, the case was heard for disposal at this stage.2. The petitioner appeared in the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (for short Board) and secured 5th position in order of merit having Roll No. 610337.3. After counseling, he having been given the offer for Admission in BVSC and AH, has moved this Court with allegation that while person secured lower position (7th position) i.e. 3rd respondent. Om Prakash Singh has been offered for MBBS Course, his legitimate claim for admission in the 1st year MBBS Course has been denied.4. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner opted for admission in BVSC and AH Course on the day of counseling i.e. 12th of May, 2003. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent opted for MBBS Course at the time of his counseling. The petitioner having not opted for Admission in MBBS Course at the time of his counseling, there was no occasion to offer him the MBB...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »