Jharkhand Court December 2004 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.
Kishun Gope Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR456(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.8.2004 passed in M.S. No. 16/2002 by the learned Sub-Judge-1, Giridih whereby he has rejected the written statement dated 15.3.2004 filed by the petitioner.2. It has been stated that by 'order dated 16.2.2004, the learned Court below had granted time to the defendant-petitioner to file written statement till 15.3.2004. On that very date the petitioner had. filed the written statement a bit belatedly, but in stead of accepting the same, the Court below debarred the petitioner from filing the written statement. According to the petitioner, he explained the delay in filing his written statement on 15.3.2004' by his petition dated 17.3.2004 and prayed for accepting the same, but by the impugned order his prayer has been refused and written statement has been refused. According to him when a date is fixed without giving specific time for filing the written statement, the defendant can file h...
Samrendra Choudhary Vs. Heavy Engineering Corn. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR145(Jhr)]
ORDERRamesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.5.2004 (Annexure-10/1) passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, H.E.C. Ltd., (respondent No. 2) pursuant to the orders of this Court, affirming the order of his removal from service; and also for quashing, the order dated 21.5.1997 (Annexure-6) passed by the Senior Deputy General Manager (respondent No. 5) removing him from service on the ground of his habitual absence from duties without leave and for tampering with the Attendance Register; and also for quashing the Enquiry Report dated 4.3.1997 (Annexure-5); and for consequential reliefs.3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent' No. 2 has not passed the impugned order dated 23.5.2002 in the light of the order of this Court dated 14.3.2002 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5007/01 (Annexure-8).4. It appears that petitioner challenged the aforesaid enquiry report dated 4.3.1997 (Annexure-5) and the order dated 21....
B. Kumar and Company Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC319; [2005(2)JCR578(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 9th March, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1280 of 2004, whereby and where under, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the certificate debtor (appellant) had already admitted its liability and has agreed to pay the certificate dues in instalments and, thereby the question of determination of liability under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as PDR Act) does not arise. However, the appellant has been allowed to prefer the appeal.2. The brief fact of the case suggests that the Sales Tax for certain period relating to assessment become disputed between the appellant-Company and the Respondent state (Department of Sales Tax) due to which appeal was preferred by the appellant. In the meantime, the Sales Tax Department of the State made requisition for amount of Rs. 5,72,373.00 ps. To the Certificate ...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Mithila Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR973; [2005(1)JCR329(Jhr)]
ORDER1. A proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of settlement of land in question. After notice to a dead person, namely, Late Ishwar Dayal Singh, it was cancelled vide order dated 3rd June, 2002. The writ petitioner/respondent whose members were in possession of the land and claimed ownership of the land, moved in appeal. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi rejected the appeal vide order dated 2nd July, 2002. The aforesaid order when challenged by the writ petitioner/respondent in W.P. (C) No. 4320 of 2002, the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25th April 2003 allowed the writ petition.2. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the land, in question, was illegally transferred in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh for the purpose of defeating the provisions of Land Reforms Act.3. The brief fact of the case is that one Jagdish Prasann...
Tinku Kumar Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3069
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned J.C. to G.P. II2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile but he is facing trial in a case registered under Sections 376(2), 302/201 I.P.C. pending in the Court of A.D.J. 1st Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 017 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 366 of 2003 (ST. No. 319 of 2003).3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Court taking the plea that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years, so he is a Juvenile under the definition of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in support of which he had filed School Leaving Certificate, but the learned trial Court did not pass any order and went on recording evidence of witnesses. It is further submitted that such a plea of being a juvenile can be taken at any stage upto highest Court an...
Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors. Vs. Banshidhar Mishra and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR153(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This memo of appeal has been preferred by the appellants after delay of six days for which cause has been shown. However, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned below, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents.LPA No. 650 of 20032. Admittedly, the land of the respondents was acquired in favour of the appellants by the notification dated 31.3.1983 issued under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957. Inspite of an application, the appellants did not choose to pay compensation to the land-looser/writ petitioners. The appellants rejected the claim by order dated 17.1.2002 on the ground that they did not require the land in future. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners/respondents challenged the said order in WP (C) 3142 of 2002. Learned Single Judge by order dated 14th August 2003 disposed of the writ petition with the direction in favour of the writ petitioners/ respondents.3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appel...
Seba Agrawal (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Kapildeo NaraIn Agrawal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR125(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this civil revision application the petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 2.7.2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sahebganj in M.A. No. 5/2003 whereby the 1st Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Sub-Judge-I, Rajmahal in Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2001.2. The petitioners were the plaintiffs. They filed Title Suit No. 13/86 in the Court of the Sub-Judge-I, Rajmahal praying relief for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendants-opposite parties to vacate the suit house and for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The defendants had appeared and contested the suit. Thereafter, on behalf of the plaintiffs, one witness was examined as PW 1. In the meanwhile, the sole plaintiff died and the petitioners were substituted in her place. They appointed an attorney by executing power-of-attorney, who, according to the petitioners, was given charge of look...
Anant Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. K.K. Rai and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR291(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Mr. K.B. Sinha. learned senior counsel for the Projects and Development India Limited made the following statements on behalf of the Company :'(a) In respect of 8 petitioners the house rent has been charged as per the order dated 24.8.1999 passed by this Court. The rent has to be charged as per the revised rate after 8th May, 1985 of all the quarters occupied by the writ petitioners;(b) No penal rent have been/will be charged from these writ petitioners;(c) The electricity bills of the petitioners will be charged as per the rate i.e. Rs. 1.33 p. per unit and not at the rate of Rs. 3.82 p. per unit;(d) A detailed statement has been prepared in respect to all the petitioners and has been filed after serving a copy of the same on the counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners can get the details of payment as made against one or other head from the said chart;(e) The S.T.D. Rs. of all the petitioners are being produced to hand over the same to the petiti...
Shibu Soren (i) Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR160(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.These two similar, Interlocutory applications [A No. 1583 of 2004 filed in B.A. No. 4640 of 2004 and IA No. 1584 of 2004 filed in B.A. No. 4685 of 2004 are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order.2. These Interlocutory applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioner for modifying the condition 'a' of the order granting him bail passed on 3.9.2004, which reads as follows :-'(a) Unless exempted by an order of the Court for valid reasons to be recorded in writing, the Petitioner shall, on each and every date fixed by the Court, be personally present.'3. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be granted exemption from being personally present on each and every date fixed by the learned trial Court and he may be allowed to be present through his counsel as envisaged under Section 317, Cr PC. He referred to the grounds taken in the Interlocutory applications...
Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC607; [2005(1)JCR127(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of direction restraining the respondents from acting pursuant to the letter dated 1.9.2004 issued by respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer, Ranch! Regional Development Authority (in short RRDA') asking the Syndicate Bank, Branch 26, Shakespeare Saraui, Kolkata to transfer the amount covered under Bank Guarantee (shortly BG) No. 47/2003 dated 17.10.2003 in favour of RRDA.2. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass :Pursuant to a tender floated by RRDA for construction of Birsa Bus Terminal at Khadgarha, Ranchi including some civil works, viz.; water supply, sanitary installation and drainage etc., the petitioner submitted his tender. By letter dated 30.9.2003 the petitioner was informed under a letter of intent that the aforesaid work was acceptable subject (o furnishing performance guarantee of the tender amount. The petitioner furnished performance bank guarantee dated 15.10...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »