Jharkhand Court September 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.
Abhoy Kumar Banerjee Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR391(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner for direction on respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 21,418,80 paise (twenty one thousands four hundred eighteen and eighty paise only) as deducted from his gratuity and to pay full gratuity amount with statutory interest for the period 1st February, 2002 to November, 2002.2. From the sanction order issued by the Director of Accounts, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi ('JSEB' for short) it appears that the petitioner was in the services of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board ('JSEB' for short)' retired on 31st January, 2002. When sanction order was issued by the Director of Accounts, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi vide Memo No. 60/02/1663/EB JSEB. Ranchi dated 23th September, 2002 vide (Annexure-1) it is ordered to deduct a sum of Rs. 21,418.80 paise (twenty one thousands' four hundred eighteen and eighty paise only) apart from quarter rent Rs. 909.29 paise (Nine hundred nine and twe...
Sanjeev Polythene Industries Vs. Bokaro Industrial Area Development Au ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR464(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J. 1. In the instant Writ Application, the petitioners pray for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents and directing them not to impose unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions upon the petitioner's industry and allow him to run the same in relation to items for which it is duly registered as a prospective supplier of polythene bags, sheet, nuts and blots since 1978. The petitioners further pray that they be allowed to participate in the tender circulated vide Notice No. PUR-/03/P-262 for purposes of supplying polythene sheets.2. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that the petitioner's industry was established in the year 1972- 73 and initially it was set up for the manufacture of polythene sheets and bags. In the year 1978, a letter was issued on 4.10.1978 by the Bokaro Steel Plant addressed to the petitioner informing it that its name had been registered as a prospective supplier of ploythene bags. That letter dated 4.10...
Keshfur Rehman Vs. R.R. Prasad, Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR179(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This contempt arises out of the order dated 24.3.2003 passed in WP (S) No. 5817 of 2003, whereby the following order was passed :--'After filing an appeal, the departmental authority shall dispose of the same after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to be heard within a period of one month from the date of the filing of the appeal.'Mr. R.R. Prasad, DGP, Mr. D.N. Pandey, DIG, Koyla Anchal Range, Bokaro, and Mr. Anil Palta, S.P., Bokaro, have been made opp. parties in this case.2. Obviously, this order was for the appellate authority and not for the other authorities of the Department. Therefore, the DGP, opp. party No. 1 and S.P., Bokaro, opp. party No. 3, as they were not the appellate authority, should not have been made opp. parties because this contempt cannot lie against them. The opp. party No. 2, Sri D.N. Pandey, has been made opp. party by name. The show cause on behalf of Sri Pandey has -been filed. In paragraph No. 9, it has been stated th...
Shalini Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar40; [2003(4)JCR221(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner (wife) against the order dated 3rd May, 2003 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 13 of 2000, whereby and where-under the 3rd respondent (father-in-law of petitioner-sasur) has been allowed to appear as a power of attorney holder on behalf of husband of petitioner (2nd respondent) for examination and cross- examination and conducting the matrimonial suit in question. The subsequent objection to the similar effect raised by the petitioner having been rejected on 10th June, 2003, the petitioner has also challenged the same.2. The main plea taken by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi is that the petitioner will not be prejudiced, if the 3rd respondent (father-in-law of petitioner) is allowed to conduct the case on behalf of her husband (2nd respondent).3. According to petitioner, the 3rd respondent, her father-in- law being a interested party and witness i...
Zubair Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Zila Parishad Giridih and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR223(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.6.1995 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad., Giridih, whereby the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Assistant to the post of Daftari.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Daftari in Zila Parishad at Giridih in the year 1973. In 1981 he was promoted to the post of office Assistant vide office memo No.793 dated 13.8.1981. A copy of the office order dated 13.8.1981 is annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition. In the promotion order it was mentioned that the petitioner will have to pass typing examination within three months. Further case is that after promotion of the petitioner, the department could not conduct any typing examination within three months and it was only in 1984 examination was conducted but petitioner was not called for. However, in 1991 t...
SomarIn Devi Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR249(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner who is the widow of late Biroo, has filed this writ application praying for quashing the order dated 8.8.1996 issued by the Project Officer of the respondent-CCL whereby the services of her husband has been terminated and further seeking a direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as her husband is missing since 31.1.1992.2. Petitioner's husband, Biroo, was an employee on the post of driver under the respondents. It is stated that since 31.1.1992 petitioner's husband left for duty and thereafter he did not return. The petitioner then lodged FIR on 3.2.1992 at Bermo police station in respect of missing of her husband. A copy of the FIR and the station diary entry have been annexed as Annexure 1 and 1/1 to the writ application.3. The Project Officer of the respondents issued show cause notice dated 6.3.1992 in the name of the petitioner's husband asking him to show cause for his unauthorized absence. The petitioner, in reply to th...
Bharat Steel Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR576(Jhr)]; (2004)IILLJ661Jhar
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2, Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 1.7.1994 which was communicated vide letter dated 28.12.1994 by which respondent No. 2, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi in exercise of power under Section 14B of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 assessed the damages for the delayed payment of provident fund/family pension fund/deposit of insurance fund and administrative charges for the period from February. 1982 to October, 1984. The proceeding for recovery of damages was initiated in 1994 and the damages together with administrative charges was assessed at Rs. 18,765/- and a demand notice was served -upon the petitioner.3. Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the proceeding initiated by the respondents in the year, 1994 itself became barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel even no limitation was provided under Sect...
Sheo Shankar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR452(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State-respondents although this is a part heard matter appearing at serial No. 2. 2. Mr. Sumir Prasad concluded his arguments and therefore this Court, in the absence of any State-respondents, has no option but to proceed on the basis of the pleading made in the writ application. 3. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion and also to pay the difference of scale in respect of the promotional benefits of super time senior scale with effect from 1.8.1995 as also difference of salary of office Superintendent with effect from 1.8.1997 together with penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 4. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 5.6.1958 in the Deputy Commissioner's office at Dhanbad. His services were confirm...
National Insurance Company Ltd. and Vs. Kaushalya SardarIn (Smt.) and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC240; [2004(2)JCR296(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties M.A. No. 153 of 2000 is barred by time and as such IA No. 938 of 2003 at Flag A has been filed to condone the delay. We find that the said delay has properly been explained. Delay is therefore condoned. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated the 8th March, 2002 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Saraikella in Compensation Case No. 24 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal held that the motor accident dated 27.11.1999 took place on account of contributory negligence of the drivers of the Truck (PAT 7477) and the minibus (BR-16B-0657) and assessed Rs. 3,26,000/- payable to the claimants, to the extent of half and half by the Insurers, of both the vehicles. Both the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by a common order. In paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal observed that Exhibit 6, the driving licence of Md. Idrish, who was driver of the minibus was a professional driving licence with entitlement to drive...
Mahendra Prasad Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR1998; [2003(4)JCR37(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs :(a) Declare the results of the petitioners as passed pursuant to the examination held in view of Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 2001; (b) Disclose and supply the marks of main and Viva Voce examination of Jharkhand Judicial Service, 2001 to the petitioners forthwith; (c) Cancel the entire appointment of the Subordinate Judicial Service Examination, 2001, the result of which was declared in the newspaper on 16.3.2002 (Annexure-4) since it was not conducted pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Munsif in the Jharkhand State (Annexure 2) and also the said examination was not been held pursuant to the rules framed for the purpose and published in the Jharkhand Gazette on 20.8.2001; (d) Any other relief for which petitioners are entitled under the law. 2. The main plea taken by the petitioners is that they suspect that they have been wrongly eliminated from the zone ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »