Jharkhand Court February 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.
Ragini Prasad and ors. Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority and a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR616(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the sanctioned map in terms of Section 37 of the Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (the Act for short), and Clause 7.2 of the Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Bye-Laws, 2002 (the Bye-laws for short), and for other reliefs.3. The case of the petitioners is as follows. For constructing a multistoried building, a plan was submitted before respondent No. 3 along with requisite fee on 27.2.2003, which was registered as B.C. Case No. 294 of 2003. On the expiry of four months, the petitioners sent a notice by registered post on 28th June, 2003 in terms of Section 37 of the Act and Clause 7.2 of the Bye-Laws. Again a notice under the said provisions was sent after expiry of one month on 11.8.2003. When no response was received, a notice dated 11.8.2003 was again sent.On 5.1.2004 from a general notice issued in the newspapers, the petitioners learnt that a letter dated 27....
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1025; [2004(101)FLR543]; [2004(2)JCR188(Jhr)]; (2004)IIILLJ206Jhar
ORDER1. Heard the counsel appearing on both sides. The appeal was taken for final disposal though it had appeared today in the Admission List with the consent of both counsel.2. This appeal is filed by the management. The Second respondent was a workman under the management. He was dismissed from service. An Industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The management, during the pendency of the reference, took action against some workmen including the second respondent and dismissed him from service. Since it was during the pendency of the dispute, the management made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for approval of the order of dismissal. The approval was not granted by the Labour Court and the application made in that behalf by the Management was rejected. The Management filed C.W.J.C. No. 903 of 1983(R) in the High Court challenging the refusal of permission. That writ ...
Saket Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR273(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 28.09.1991 (Annexure-20), a punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner in the following terms :(A) For the unauthorized absence for the period 24.04-1981 to 20.01.1983, the same would be treated to be unauthorized and following the principle of no work no pay, he would not be paid any salary or allowances.(B) The order of suspension shall be treated to be a punishment for the period 1981-82; and(C) For this period of suspension, he would not be entitled to any payment save and except subsistence allowance.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that the period for which the petitioner was punished was 24.04.1981 to 20.01.1983 but instead thereof, the respondent have not given any increment or promotion for the other periods.4. From the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is evident that th...
Smt. Jharna Sharma Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman-cu ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR244(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioner, who is the widow of Late Deepak Kumar Sharma, has come out with a case that her husband was a General Manager's Schedule Contractor who was working at the Central Sauda Mines of CCL and he had submitted bills to the authorities for payment but since they were not being honoured, there was a hunger strike which was called by the representatives of the contractor. The petitioner has further stated that on 23.8.2001, while her husband was carrying out his contractual work inside the colliery, he met with an accident and died.3. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid developments that the petitioner has come forward making a claim/demand to the effect that the respondents should make necessary verification in relation to the works already done by her husband so that payments are released and then, to pay compensation as per agreement (Annexure-4). She has also prayed that the respondents should also consider...
Sushila Devi Kejriwal Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC162; AIR2004Jhar108
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-7-2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer. Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1995 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C.2. It appears that the appellant and one Smt. Babban Devi filed claim cases being Title (M.V.) Suit No. 45 of 1991 and 46 of 1991 for the grant of compensation on account of death of their husband in motor vehicle accident. Both suits were heard together and disposed of by common judgment dated 9-2-1994. The claim application which was filed by the appellant was registered as Title (M.V.) No. 46 of 1991. It appears that the appellant was granted interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. However, both the suits were finally disposed of in terms of the judgment aforesaid. In Title (M.V.) Suit No. 45 of 1991, the tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs. 74,880/- Since no evidence wa...
Chaturbhuj Pandit and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1812; [2004(2)JCR77(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellants stand directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.1998 and 26.8.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1997/21 of 1997 by Shri Mungeshwar Sahoo, 2nd Additional Session Judge, Godda whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years each.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of informant PW 8 Punilal Pandit recorded by ASI, S.R Sharma of Godda Mufassil PS at the house of the informant in village Kur-michak on 25.12.1996 at 14.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 10.00 hours and the case was instituted by drawing of a formal FIR (Ext. 2/A) on 26.12.1996 at 8.30 hours. The said fardbeyan and formal FIR were received on that very day in the Court empowered to take ...
Kuber Chandra Das Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4776; [2004(2)JCR88(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.1998 passed in Sessions Trail No. 347 of 1997 by Shri Shiveshwar Narayan, Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R I for seven years each for the aforesaid offence. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the FIR of informant PW 1 Kuttu Dai, an unmarried girl aged about 17 years lodged before Jagannathpur P.S on 29.6.1997 at 17.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place between 15.6.1997 and 24.6.1997 at village Gardisai Danguaposi within Jagannathpur PS and it continued at village Jamda, P.S. Gua, District Singhbhum West and also at Bandamunda District Sundargarh, Orissa where the...
Birla Institute of Technology Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1321; [2004(2)JCR260(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel on both sides.2. These appeals came up for admission and on consent are taken up for final disposal together.3. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2958 of 2003 and W.P (C) No. 3325 of 2003 respectively are the appellants in these appeals. They filed statements under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On the scheme of the Act, the statements filed under Section 6 have to be inquired into by the competent authority by preparing a draft statement in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Thereafter, considering the objections, if any, a final statement in terms of Section 9 had to be prepared by the competent authority. By passing such an order, the authority determines the land held in excess of the ceiling area by a statement given and becomes entitled to take possession of such excess land in terms of the Act. A person aggrieved by the final statement prepared under Section 9 of the Act, has a right of appeal, either under Section 12 of t...
Manas Kumar Mishra (i) Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Chief Secret ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR74(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. But, it is the case of the appellant that there is no delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant, the judgment of the learned single Judge was rendered on 24.3.2003. The application for certified copy was made on 26.3.2003. The required stamps were called for on 5.4.2003. They were produced the same day. The copy was made ready on 7.4.2003 and it was delivered to the appellant on 7.4.2003 itself. According to the appellant, he was entitled to exclude the period from 26.3.2003 to 7.4.2003, the period during which the application for the certified copy was pending. The last day for filing the appeal was 6.5.2003, being the 30th day. The appeal was filed on that day. Hence the appeal was filed in time in terms of the Limitation Act in the context of Section 12 thereof. It is submitted that the Rule of the High Court which provides that the appeal should be treated as having been filed only when the de...
Manas Kumar Mishra (ii) Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1286; [2004(3)JCR59(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition in this Court on 14.1.2003 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to punish the respondents, particularly, respondents 6, 7. 8 and 9 since they have illegally detained the petitioner in police custody without any valid order of remand and for directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for his illegal detention for three days and physical assault by respondents 6 to 9 in the police lockup at Hazipur Police Station, District Vaishali in the State of Bihar after the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. It is seen that on the day this writ petition was moved, a proceeding initiated on the basis of letter written by the uncle of the petitioner was pending in the High Court of Patna and it had been numbered as Cr. W.J.C. No. 44 of 2003. It is seen from the order in that writ petition subsequently passed that there was a complaint against the alleged illegal detention of the writ petitioner. When the w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »