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.
Dinanath Sharma Vs. Premia Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR190(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Jagnandan Sharma was employee of Angar- Pathra Colliery, under M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited was working as night guard. He died in harness on 11.1.1988. Premia Devi, her two sons and two daughters filed Succession Certificate Case No. 79 of 1988, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate in respect of his death- cum- retiral benefits.2. It was objected to by Dinanath Sharma a nephew of the deceased. By impugned judgment/order dated 10.5.1991 succession certificate was granted to them and the mother, Premia Devi, on behalf of her two sons and two daughters, was permitted to withdraw and realise the amounts detailed in the Schedule appended at the foot of the petition, outstanding in the name of the deceased, Jagnandan Sharma.3. According to Premia Devi, she was married with late Jagnandan Sharma some time in the year 1964 and out of their wedlock the aforesaid two sons and two daughters were born.4. During his service period in the year 1987, J...
Krishna Ram Thakur @ Krishna Ram Vs. Mahesh Sao and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR36(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1.This appeal has been directed at the instance of the plaintiff appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.5.1988 and 26.5.1988 respectively passed in title Appeal No. 59 of 1986 by Shri Lala Anjani Kumar Sinha 3rd Additional District Judge. Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the said appeal filed by defendant Mahesh Sao was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1986 and 22.8.1986 passed in Title Suit No. 80 of 1984 by Shri R.B. Singh, 2nd Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh was set aside.2. The plaintiff appellant Krishna Ram had filed Title Suit No. 80 of 1984 for declaration that the sale deed dated 8.3.1984 executed by defendant respondent No. 2 Tara Ram in favour of defendant respondent No. 1 Mahesh Sao is null and void and it has conferred no title on defendant respondent No. 1 Mahesh Sao in respect of the suit property detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. A further relief has also been sought directing defendant respondent No. 2 Tara Ram...
Dr. Mahendra Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR365; [2004(1)JCR399(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The petitioner was appointed a lecturer in Economics on 19.1.1975 by the Governing Body of Millat College, Parsa. According to him, he joined that post as Lecturer in the Department of Economics on 23.11.1975. He was appointed on the first sanctioned post. He was only a graduate at the time of his appointment. He did not possess a Postgraduate Degree at all; leave alone, a Postgraduate Degree with high second class. On 24.2.1977, he got a Master's degree, not in high second class, but in second class. On 6.2.1978, the Governing Body of the College forwarded a proposal to the Bihar Universities Service Commission to give a concurrence for his temporary appointment. On 30.9.1978, concurrence for temporary appointment was given. According to the petitioner, the Chancellor wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the Bhagalpur University by communication dated 21.3.1983; approving the absorption of 20 temporary lecturers including the petitioner. On 19.8.1983, the Gover...
State of Jharkhand, Through Director of Industries and ors. Vs. Smt. S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR59(Jhr)]
ORDERI.A. No. 1512 of 20031. This is a petition for condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. This is opposed. But having heard both sides, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. This petition is, therefore, allowed.L.P.A. No. 227 of 20032. When the matter came up for admission, Respondent No. 1, the contesting respondent, had appeared. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 was also present, With the consent of the parties, both sides were heard and this appeal is being disposed of finally by this judgment.3. The first respondent was working on daily wages from 6.5.1987. That appointment was terminated. The first respondent whereupon filed C.W.J.C. No. 1297 of 1990 (R) before this Court. This Court found that the original appointment was illegal and without jurisdiction, since the authority, who had made the appointment, was not' competent to do so. Thus the writ petition filed by the first respondent was found to be without merit and the fi...
Janardan Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR25(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Petition No. 7 of 1999 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 16.11.1998 and 1.12.1997 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Ap-pellate Authority and the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Confiscating Officer, Hazaribagh.2. It appears that the Tractor and trailer of the petitioner was seized by the Forester on 24.1.1993 on the information that the said Tractor was loaded with Mango woods and 2-3 persons were sitting on the said vehicle. When the Forest Officer intercepted the vehicle, the person sitting in the Tractor fled away and on inquiry it was found that the Tractor was coming from Bijulia Mouza carrying with Mango woods cut from the forest land. A confiscation proceeding was Initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer and after hearing the petitioner passed final order confiscating the Mango wood and ...
Sri Krishna Pradhan and ors. Vs. Bank of Indian and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR71(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/ order(s) for the following reliefs:--(i) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to pay the rent to the petitioners which is due since 1.10.1997 with interest, with effect from the date the same became due at the rate of, as being charged by the respondents from the petitioners on the loan taken by the petitioners from the Bank in respect of the premises, M/s. Prad-han Place situated at mohalla--North Office Para P.S.--Doranda, District--Ranchi where the branch office of the respondents is functioning.(ii) For also commanding upon the respondents to pay the construction charges for currency chest and strong room as per Bank design and under the supervisions of Architect of the Banks.(iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and. circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable ju...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanb ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR531]; [2004(2)JCR610(Jhr)]; (2004)IIILLJ837Jhar
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5957 of 2001.2. Sri Jaswant Singh Gill, the respondent No. 3 was posted as the Chief General Manager, Lodna area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. On the basis of the charge-sheet dated 24.2.1997, relating to coal stock shortage, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, wherein enquiry report was submitted on 18.8.1999 showing the charge to have been proved. In the meantime on 30.4.1998, the respondent No. 3 retired from service. However, in terms of Rule 34.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'), applicable to the executives of the Coal India Limited, the enquiry on the aforesaid charge was continued, even after his retirement and on the basis of the said enquiry report, in terms of Rule 27.1(i)(d) he was punished on 5.7.2000 and the amount of gratuity payable to him was forfeited.3. On 4.1.2000, the...
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Vs. Mijaj International
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar29; II(2004)BC438; 2003(3)BLJR2295; [2003(4)JCR579(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This revision has been directed at the instance of the Stale of Bihar (now Jharkhand) the judgment debtors-petitioner against the impugned order dated 27.8.1998 passed in Execution Case No. 1 of 1991 by 2nd Subordinate Judge, Seraikeila whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the decree holder for payment of compound interest on the decretal amount from the date of reference till 27.8.1998 was allowed with a direction to the Seristedar of the Court to calculate the interest, accordingly, and to submit a report in respect thereof and further a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded as special cost against the judgment debtor petitioner payable to decree holder opposite parties.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows :There was an agreement between the judgment debtors petitioner and the decree holder-opposite party in the year 1984-85 for erection of dismantled hanger shed on the right bank of Subarnrekha Bandh at Chandil and in pursuance of the sa...
Central Coal Fields Ltd. and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Biha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR599(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. In these write petitions, filed by Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL); common questions are raised and therefore they are taken up together. The petitioners pray for a declaration that they are not liable to pay surcharge payable in terms of Section 3-A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1984 (the Act for short), and for refund of the surcharge paid by them.2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that after the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Bihar Alloy Steels Limited and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 824; the petitioners realized that they have been paying the surcharge by mistake and therefore, they are entitled to a declaration that they are not liable to pay surcharge and also that they are entitled to refund of the amounts, paid as surcharge.3. Broadly stated, the liability to pay surcharge under Section 3-A of the Act inter alia arises, when a person becomes liable to pay ...
Girish Chandra Vs. Vikash Dhanuka and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR262(Jhr)]
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties. Title Suit No. 104 of 2002 has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 for dissolution of the partnership firm, namely, Shiva Fuel Industries with further direction to defendant No. 1 to render the accounts of the said firm and for injunction restraining him from doing any business, including taking supply of coal from the defendant No. 2 and sell the same in the market.2. During pendency of the suit, a separate petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from issuing delivery orders to the defendant No. 1 to lift the stock of coal from the collieries. The defendant No. 1 filed show cause in the interim injunction matter and by order dated 12.8.2002 the trial Court rejected the prayer for interim injunction on the ground that both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were partners to the extent of half and h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »