Jharkhand Court March 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR102(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. This is an application by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs under Section 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for issuing a direction to the Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata to refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the decision of the Tribunal :--(i) Whether the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that the liability of the assessee to pay an amount equal to 8% of the price of the excisable goods in terms of Rule 57CC (1) of Central Excise Rules. 1944 is neither modvat credit nor duty?(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order for recovery of the sum of Rs. 5,61,56,938/- calculated at the rate of 8% of the cokes sold to outside parties in terms of Rule 57CC (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that no machinery has been provided in the Act, or the Rules, for recovering such amount, without considering the provisions of...
Radhika Devi Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Central Coalfields Lt ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR120(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner who is the widow of Late Sri Rajeshwar Pd. Singh, an employee of the respondent-company, seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to give employment to her son who is dependent according to the provisions of the Clause 9.4.2. of the National Coal Wages Agreement and also for quashing the -letter whereby the claim of the petitioner's son Sri Upendra Kumar Singh was rejected.3. The petitioner's husband while working as a Sr. Security Guard died in harness in 1999. After his death petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to her son Sri Upendra Kr. Singh. She also claimed death-cum-retiral benefits. The Project Officer, Central Coaliflelds Ltd. Hutar Colliery, Daltonganj, respondent No. 4, sent a detailed note recommending the case of the petitioner as genuine. The Project Officer also forwarded necessary documents executed by the deceased-husband of the petitioner reflecting that Upendra Kr. Singh is the s...
Somen Kumar Choudhury Vs. Pranati Choudhury (Smt.)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC273; [2004(2)JCR503(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This appeal is filed by the husband who had applied for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act). Admittedly the marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent and it was consummated. The wife became pregnant. She was taken to the house of her parents for delivery as per the custom, according to the husband, on 18.12.1996. According to the wife, she was driven away from the matrimonial home by the husband and the cruelty of his father, examined as PW 2 and she was being tortured for dowry. The wife gave birth to baby girl on 23.2.1997. According to the husband she had not come back after delivery in spite of his repeated requests to her. She had taken a decision not to come back to her matrimonial home. He had gone several times to persuade her to come and live with him, but the wife had refused to live with him. Since she had no intention to return to the matrimonial home and they had been living...
Yadunandan Rabidas and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR514(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application is for quashing of the order as contained in Annexure-4, dated 9.12.1995, whereby promotion given to the petitioners in Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade was cancelled by an order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka. The petitioners who are all members of Scheduled Castes Category wee appointed as Assistant Teachers. By issue of Annexure-3 i.e., the Office order dated the 20th of May, 1995, the petitioners alongwith some others were given the benefit of Senior Selection Grade from the date mentioned against their names pursuant to the decision taken by the Committee constituted for examining the matter of promotion. As per the decision of the Committee, the R.D.D.E issued order dated 20th of May, 1995. whereby the petitioner were promoted in the Senior Selection Grade vide Annexure-3.2. Thereafter vide Annexure-4 dated 9.12.1995, the respondent No. 4, R.D.D.F. who c...
Durga Sahu and ors. Vs. Deo Chand Sahu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR61(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of defendants-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.2.1984 and 28.2.1984 passed in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1982 by Shri A.N.K.N. Sinha, District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1982 and 4.9.1982 passed in Partition Suit No. 23 of 1977 by Sub-ordinate Judge, Giridih was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed and the suit was decreed for carving out a separate Takata of the plaintiffs-respondent to the extent of their share which is 3 annas and 8-2/3 pie in the suit property.2. The plaintiffs respondent had filed the said suit for metes and bounds partition of the suit property of Khata No. 62 situate in village-Palmo in the district of Giridih detailed at the food of the plaint in which they had claimed 7 annas and 4 pie share.3. The case of the plaintiffs-respondent, in brief, is that Battu Tell was the common ancestor of the parties and he had four ...
Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR175(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of Annexure-5 dated 19.4.2002 i.e., a letter by the Government of Jharkhand, addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners, whereby it was directed that the quota of Sugar allotted shall be lifted from the Sugar mills by the Bihar State Food Corporation and the wholesalers were directed to deposit the money to the Bihar State Food Corporation for lifting Sugar.3. The petitioners who are wholesale dealers of Sugar, their grievance is that earlier the wholesalers used to lift sugars from the mills directly and there was no, complaint whatsoever against them, nor the wholesalers showed their inability in lifting Sugar and, therefore, the issuance of Annexure-5 is illegal and the wholesalers cannot be forced to deposit the money to the Bihar State Food Corporation for lifting Sugar.4. In my view, the direction as contained in Annexure-5 has been issued by the Government of Jharkhand by way of a policy dec...
Gamaria Nagrik Samiti and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR262a(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the demand notice dated 14.12.1995 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, issued by the office of the Adityapur Notified Area Committee, Adityapur, whereby, the petitioners have been asked to deposit the House-tax and other Tax. Petitioners have challenged the issuance of Annexure-1, demanding tax, only on the ground that the Notified Area Committee has no right to ask the petitioners to pay the tax, as the term of five years of Notified Area Committee had already expired from the date of its constitution, therefore, in the eyes of law it has ceased to exit.2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after 1994, the Notified Area Committee cannot be said to be in existence and, therefore, the notice issued as contained in Annexure-1 is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that Adityapur Notified Area Committee was constituted on 8.9.1989 and, therefore, it ha...
Raja Ram Kahar Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industria ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR260(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This application is directed against the award dated 16.1.1987 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 43 of 1986 by which, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited was justified in dismissing, the concerned workmen namely, Raja Ram Kahar, Timber Mistiri from service.2. The Government of India referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication :--'Whether the management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited were Justified in dismissing from service from 1.7.1983 Shri Rajaram Kahar, Timber Mistry? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?'3. The petitioner Raja Ram Kahar was working as Timber Mistry in Bhalgora Section of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. BCCL. In the night between 12.12.1982 and 13.12.1982 a theft was committed from the safe of cash room of Simlabahal Colliery and cash amounting to Rs. 2,03,53...
Workmen Represented by the General Secretary of the Chotanagpur Indust ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR510(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. By a reference made by the Government of Bihar dated 28.4.1987, the following terms were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication :--'(i) Whether the removal from service of Sri Dharam Patel Fitter employee No. 132605-H.M.B.P. of H.F.C. is proper and justified? If not whether they are entitled to re-instatement or/and any other relief?(ii) Whether withdrawal of one additional annual increment given to Sri Mahabir Ram Munda and 38 others workmen (fully describe in annexure of notification) of F.F.P. of H.F.C. and deduction of pay additional annual increment from the salary by the management is proper and justified? If not whether they are entitled to get additional increment and get back the amount deducted?(iii) Whether there has been supersession in promotion in Grade 'D' and Grade 'B' of Sri Ram Prakash Sharma and 4 others pattern makers (fully described in the annexure of notification of F.F.P. of H.F.C.? If so what relief these workmen are entitled to?(i...
Jai Laxmi Fuels (P) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR226(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the order dated 31.10.2001 as contained in Annexure 13 to the writ application, whereby the Chief General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad Informed the petitioner that since he failed to book 1,26,167 MT of slurry out of the allotted quantity of 1,96.667 MT and therefore, under the penalty Clause 8 of the tender the security deposit of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 7,44,385.30 paise for unbooked quantity of slurry was forfeited and further that the petitioner was found to be entitled for refund of the amount of Rs. 3,95,614.70 paise plus the value of the balance quantity of slurry, if any, after surrendering the original sale order. Further, prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to refund the entire amount deposited by him to the tune of Rs. 11,40,000/- (Eleven lakhs forty thousand).3. From the order as contained in Annexure 12 pass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »