Jharkhand Court February 2004 Judgments
Pushkar Techno Private Ltd. Vs. General Manager, Chittranajan Locomoti ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR535(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The parties to these two applications are the same the contracts involved are also similar in nature and the parties are also the same. Hence, these applications are being disposed of by this common order.2. These applications are under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 calling upon the Chief Justice of this Court to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties which have arisen in view of the claims made by the petitioner.3. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause, Clause 2900 in the contract involved. But, the parties by way of Clause 2703, have dealt with jurisdiction. I extract paragraph-2703 herein :--'Jurisdiction of Court.--The Courts of the place from where the acceptance of tender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract.'4. The petitioners have approached the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court with their app...
Tag this Judgment!Yamuna Prasad Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR157(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. This is a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the interim order passed in a second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner. Normally, I should be passing this order after hearing the contesting respondents but, I find that there are 20 respondents in this proceeding and if this matter were to be admitted and the proceedings kept in abeyance, it will prejudice the respondents more than the order I now propose to pass. In that view, I propose to dispose of this proceeding without issuing notices to the respondents 5 to 20. Government counsel has appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in terms of Santhal Parganas Act before the Assistant Settlement Officer. That suit was resisted by the writ petitioner. That suit was decreed. An appeal was filed by the writ petitioner before the Settlement Officer, deputy Commissioner, Dumka. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR108(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Reference may be made to the order dated 12.2.2004 which reads as under :--'Heard the parties.The petitioner is the widow whose husband, after serving as Headmaster of the school, died in 1978 but the retiral benefits have not been paid till date.It is alleged by the petitioner that she being illiterate lady was always kept in dark by the Principal of the school and hence she was not paid even a single farthing. It is only after filing of this writ application when this Court called upon the respondents to file counter affidavit, two bank drafts; one for a sum of Rs. 61,499.50 paise being the arrears of provisional pension and another for a sum of Rs. 8040 being the provisional gratuity, have been produced before this Court by the State counsel. Even today the provident fund amount, gratuity amount and leave encashment etc. have not been paid to the petitioner.In the counter affidavit it is stated that the GPF was sanctioned in 1985 but could ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Rajak Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2450
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. The petitioner, Tulsi Rajak claims to be the owner of the truck bearing registration No. BR 01H-4357 for which photocopy of registration has been annexed as Annexure A-2 to this application. He further prayed for issuance of an appropriate order quashing the order dated 4-11-2003 passed by the learned Court in T. R. No. 1043 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by this petitioner to release the truck in question was rejected.2. Earlier the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision No. 568 of 2003, of which Annexure A-1 is the order of this Court, directing the Court below to call for a report from the concerned Police Station within seven days and thereafter considering the report he will pass appropriate order, in accordance with law regarding the release of the truck in question. After submission of police report, learned Court below considered the report and thereafter refused to release the truck in question in favour of the petitioner.3...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Avinash Dubey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR176(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. and Tapen Sen, J.1. This writ petition said to be filed in public interest by a social worker seeks to challenge the norms for tenders set out by a notice inviting tenders for construction of a water supply project estimated to cost about rupees 88 crores for supply of drinking water to Dhanbad. The challenge of the petitioner is to the prescription that ductile iron pipes are to be used and that the tenderers should have experience in laying of at least 10 kilometres of ductile iron pipes of a diameter not less than 600 millimetres: that the pipes shall conform to I.S.-8329/2000 with latest amendment and the pipes should have ISI mark. The sourcing of pipe material should be from a reputed company having manufacturing experience of not less than 3 years and their pipes laid in any project should have performed satisfactorily in India for a period of not less than 2 years. According to the petitioner, the selection of ductile iron pipes, the insistence on pip...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR267(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. At the very outset Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the appellant stated that he is now confining his appeal only to the respondent No. 6 as the respondent No. 5 is admittedly senior to the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.09.2003 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4681 of 2003 disposing off the writ petition without dealing with the same on merits,3. According to the petitioner, he is presently posted as Superintending Engineer - Incharge, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Dhanbad. He was previously posted as Technical Advisor to the Superintending Engineer, Gumla in the Public Health Engineering Department {PHED for short). This Department was subsequently renamed as Drinking Water and Sanitation Department.4. The appellant has attempted to make out a case of supersession by the respondent No. 6 namely Badri Das and has submitted, with reference to Annexure-1, that by a letter dated 18.07.2001, the C...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Tiwari, Vs. the Project and Development India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC395; 2004(2)BLJR1342; [2004(2)JCR545(Jhr)]; [2005]63SCL167(Jhar)
ORDER1. These writ petitions are by some individuals employed in the Project and Development India Ltd. Sindri and some Unions representing the workmen.2. The essential challenge in these writ petitions is to the scheme for revival of the company to be examined by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) Admittedly, the company had invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and it was referred to the BIFR in the year, 1992. With the Central Government approval, certain steps were taken as part of the revival package. The approval of BIFR is still awaited. These writ petitions essentially seek to challenge the mode adopted for proceeding with the scheme before the BIFR.3. Earlier, the claim was sought to be challenged in WP (PIL) No. 4946 of 2003. This Court by judgment dated 30.1.2004, dismissed the writ petition. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (1) JCR 3...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Shree Industries Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR224(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner's contention is that the meter testing report dated 7.11.2003, (Annexure-4) and the demands raised on the basis thereof are illegal and arbitrary.2. Petitioner's meter was checked by the respondents on 7.11.2003, when it was found slow (Annexure-4). On the said check report, petitioner noted its objection as follows :'Consumer Remark.--(1) We are not sure about accuracy of the meter with which the testing was done and as such we cannot agree with the result.(2) We have paid for the unconsumed unit as per AMG bills and the amount paid by us for the last 3 years comes to Rs. 13.5 lacs i.e. for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03. The meter , is the property of JSEB and may replace if found defective by you.'3. A supplementary demand was raised on the basis of the said check report revising the bills for the preceding six months (Annexures-2 and 3).4. The respondent's contention is that it is a case of tampering with the meter by slowing it down and not...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Smt. Asha Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1029; II(2004)DMC139; [2004(2)JCR203(Jhr)]
ORDER1. With consent of the counsel, the appeal itself was taken up for final disposal when the interlocutory application was moved.2. This appeal is by the husband. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) filed by the wife. The parties got married on 17.5.1989. The husband applied for divorce and as per Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 1995 obtained a decree for divorce on 23.1.1998 on the ground of desertion by the wife. It is said that the husband subsequently remarried and has got a child in that wedlock. The present application was filed by the divorced wife invoking Section 25 of the Act and pleading that she had no means of livelihood; that she has been residing with her widowed mother and no alimony was granted while granting the decree for divorce and that she was entitled to alimony. She claimed alimony at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month on the basis that h...
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR266(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner who worked as part time Chemist from 7.8.1990 to 25.2.1991 and then he is continuously working from 1.3.1994 on the same post on a meagre sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of Honorarium.2. Further prayer of the petitioner is that he should be given the salary as per new scale admissible to Chemist i.e. Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and also the arrears of the salary worth Rs. 21,000/-because he has been paid Rs. 1.200/- instead of Rs. 1,500/- per month since March 1994 to October, 1999.3. The case of the petitioner is that post of Chemist against which he is working is a sanctioned post and he is working on the same post since long and therefore, he is entitled to regularize on the said post.4. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that though the post of chemist against which the petitioner is working is a s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »