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.
Sunrise Ingot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR2102; [2003(4)JCR190(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This appeal, by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 196 of 2000(R), challenges the dismissal of the said writ petition by the learned Single Judge, The appellant entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board for a contract demand of 200 KVA for a high tension connection. By order dated 3.11.1998 the said request was accepted to. According to the appellant, it purchased the requisite furnace having a capacity of 500 kg. and installed the same in the factory premises. The appellant claims that it is a small scale industry engaged in casting works. In the year 1993, as per notification dated 23.6.1993, the tariffs were fixed by the Bihar State Electricity Board. The tariff made applicable to the appellant fell, in the category of High Tension Supply-I which is Item VII in the tariff notification. Thus, the load applied for the appellant was High Tension 200 KVA and the load sanctioned was also 200 KVA on H.T.S.-I Tariff.2. The Bihar State Electri...
Harjinder Singh Choudhary Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR2009; [2004(1)JCR58(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 15-3-2003 issued by the Secretary, Ranchi Regional Development Authority cancelling the sanction of building plan in purported exercise of power under Section 38 of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981.2. It appears that petitioner submitted a plan before the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for construction of building. Several irregularities were pointed out and the petitioner was asked to deposit certain amount and the amount having been deposited, the plan was finally sanctioned on 14-9-2002 in case No. 560/2002. However, the said order do sanction was cancelled by the impugned order dated 15-3-2003.3. In order to find out whether order of cancellation was passed after giving notice to show cause and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not, record of the aforesaid case was called for and the same has been produced by the Counsel appearing for the Ranchi Regional Developme...
P.B. Enterprises, Engineers and Contractors Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar71; 2004(2)ARBLR171(Jhar); [2003(4)JCR596(Jhr)]
Acts/Rules/Orders: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6); Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Constitution of India - Article 137Cases Referred: Konkan Railways Corporation Limited v. Rani Construction P. Ltd., 2002 (2) SCC 388; State of Orissa and Ors. v .Gokulananda Jena, 2003 (6) SCC 465Disposition: Petition dismissedOrder1. The Eastern Coalfields Limited terminated the work order given to M/s. P.B. Enterprises in March, 1990 for construction of 64 units of 'B' type quarters (D/S) at Rajmahal area on 31.5.1995. Certain disputes arose between therein in respect of the said work order. By letter dated 12.2.1996 M/s. P.B. Enterprises, petitioner herein requested the respondents concerned to refer the matter to an Arbitrator as per Clause 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract within thirty days of the receipt thereof.2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Eastern Coalfields Limited, Rajmahal area, being the appointing authority of the Arbitrator as p...
Sadhu Sharan Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Chief Secretary an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR243(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.2. This writ petition said to be in public interest challenges an order dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure-3), by which it has been decided by the Government to entrust all construction works to the 'Building Construction Department' including construction, repair and maintenance, installation of electrical equipments, sanitation fittings etc. in buildings construed by the Building Construction Department. Apparently, earlier, the work of the fixing of sanitation fittings was being done by the Public Health Engineering Department. According to the counter-affidavit, which has been filed by respondent No. 2, the division of work had led to considerable delay in completion of buildings by the Building Construction Department and the handing over of the buildings after construction and keeping in view all the relevant aspects, the present order was issued. The reason given in the counter-affidavit is not so irrational ...
Smt. Hira Mani Devi Vs. Bansi Ram and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar77; [2003(4)JCR256(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.6.1988 and 28.6.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1986 by Shri Yugal Klshore Prasad, 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1986, and 17.5.1986 passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 1985 by Muns if, Palamau at Daltonganj was reversed.2. The plaintiff/appellant Hira Mani Devi had filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property i.e. 4 decimals of land of plot No. 896 appertaining to Khata No. 67 situate in village Narsingpur @ Pathra, P.S. Chainpur, District Paiamau detailed in the schedule of the plaint and recovery of possession.3. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that plot No. 896 of Khata No. 67 having an area of 4 decimals situate in village Narsingpur @ Pathra stands recorded in the ...
Bharat Coal Product Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR184(Jhr)]; [2006]146STC102(Jharkh)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. WP (T) 189 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1998-99 under the Bihar Finance Act and WP (T) No. 193 of 2003 relates the assessment year 1997-98. The writ petitions are filed to quash the orders of assessment for the respective years under the Central Sales Tax Act and under the Bihar Finance Act. The facts relating to the two assessment years are more or less identical and hence need not be repeated.2. The petitioner, the assessee, filed quarterly returns under the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1976. In those quarterly returns, the petitioner showed its gross turn over as inter-state sales and paid the tax accordingly. After the period prescribed by Section 16(4) of the Bihar Finance Act for filing revised returns had expired, the assessee made applicatiqns on 1.3.2002, copies of which are annexed as Annexure 1 series to these writ petitions, along with what it called revised returns. As against the original stand taken in the returns that the sales were inte...
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble Chancellor, Jharkhand Sta ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR187(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This writ petition was referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge in view of the pendency of LPA No. 336 of 2003 before a Division Bench. The petitioner has relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge giving rise to that appeal at the time of arguments and had claimed relief. It was in that context that the learned Single Judge referred this writ petition to be heard by a Division Bench since the decision in LPA No. 336 of 2003 is bound to have impact on the decision to be rendered in this writ petition.2. We heard the arguments in LPA No. 336 of 2003 and LPA No. 377 of 2003, the present writ petition and the other connected matters in two different stages, but in the presence of all counsel. We have rendered a separate judgment in LPA Nos. 336 and 377 of 2003 [see 2003 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr)]. The main point canvassed herein are governed by the decision rendered by us in those appeals.3. Various universities coming within the re-constituted S...
Suresh Bhagat and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BLJR2069
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The three appellants along with one Niraj Kumar (since acquitted) were Charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Permeshwar @Tepra. Oraon.2. The trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla vide his judgment dated 12-9-1996 in ST. No. 298 of 1995, convicted the present three appellants, finding them guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. The fourth accused, namely, Niraj Kumar, was however, not found guilty by the trial Court and thereby he was acquitted.3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence by the trialCourt, the appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging their convictionand sentence.4. The First Information Report was registered on 2-7-1995 by Ghaghra Police within the district of Gumla .against the appellants and one another on the basis of the Fardbeyan of Ghuneshwar Sahu. The informant, Ghuneshw...
indraprastha Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Jharkhand)632; [2004]266ITR320(Jharkhand)
P. K. Balasubramanyan, C. J.1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 under that Act. The appeals are by the assessee. The assessee filed returns and it was assessed. Subsequently, notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued on the basis that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. A notice was also served on the assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act. The annexure to that notice informed the assessee that information had been received that the assessee had received payment of different sums relating to different years from the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Bihar during the relevant accounting years and calling upon the assessee to furnish the relevant information based on the queries made in that communication. Essentially, the assessee admitted that it had received those amounts from the Animal Husbandry Department, but...
Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand Vs. Dr. Arjun Prasad S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR20(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This application is by the appellant, the State of Jharkhand for condoning the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal against a judgment in W.P. (S) No. 6084 of 2002. The petition is opposed by the respondent, the writ petitioner.2. It is submitted in the petition that the delay occurred in view of the fact that the question whether to file the appeal or not had to be considered in the light of the implications of the judgment under appeal. Opinion of the Advocate General was sought and obtained and thereafter the appeal was filed. This was the reason for the delay. There was no absence of bona fides on the part of the State.3. Learned counsel for the first respondent is right in submitting that by applying the strict test, no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay, since the State should have taken the steps in time. But while appreciating this argument, we have to take note of the fact that from the same judgment, an appeal, LPA No. 336 of 2003 filed in tim...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »