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.
Shaktipada Banerjee Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR228(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner had moved before this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 1697 of 1999 (R) with a prayer for direction to the respondent-authority for grant of the B.A. trained pay scale from the date he passed B.Ed. examination, i.e.. 20.1,1971 on the ground that persons Junior to him was given the same benefit. This Court by order dated 5.2.2001 while disposing of the said writ application, refused to pass any positive order with regard to the said prayer of the petitioner. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad. On filing of such representation, the District Superintendent of Education was directed to dispose of the same by speaking order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of filing of such representation. It was further observed in the said order that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, an appropriate order mus...
Employees in Relation to the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of C.C.L ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR117]; [2004(2)JCR229(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I Dhanbad dated 12.5.1997 in Reference Case No. 130 of 1990 is under challenge in this writ application at the instance of the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd.2. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following disputes to the Tribunal for adjudication :'Whether the action of the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of C.C.L. Ltd. P.O. Kuju, Dist. Hazaribagh by not regularising S/Sri. Kalicharan Mahato and 54 other workmen as mentioned in the list attached with Annexure and also not making payment of their wages individually for the period from 1.2.1988 to 16.2.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?'3. The case of the concerned workmen is that they were engaged for water supply by the management ...
Ramcharitra Burma Vs. Smt. Kiran Devi Tiberwal
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR53(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balsubramanyan, C.J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for eviction of the defendant under Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(d) of the Dinar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The plaintiff pleaded that the building was let out by one Kishore, the son of Jai Ram to the defendant; that the defendant was holding the building as a tenant; that Kishore, on 5.2.1993. had sold the building to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the premises as he had defaulted in paying the rent; that she had two unemployed sons and the building, a room having a dimension of 6 x 12 ft. was bona fide required by her for the starting of a business by her unemployed sons. The defendant resisted the suit questioning the exclusive title of Kishore, the assignor of the plaintiff, and the derivative title of the plaintiff over the room in question. He denied the bona fide requirement of the plaint...
Anil Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR519(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for eviction under Section 12 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 which corresponds to Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The ground was default in payment of rent. The defendants denied the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They pleaded in the written statement that the original owner of the property was one Bhagwan Prasad who had agreed to sell the property to the predecessor of the defendants and had executed an agreement to sell dated 8.4.1973 in that behalf fixing a total consideration of Rs. 6,001/- as purchase price and their predecessor had paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards the agreed consideration and had gone into possession. There did not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The suit was misconceived. It may be noted that th...
Abhimanyu Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR521(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to reappoint the petitioner on Class III post of Health Educator in the light of the judgment and order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8336 of 1997, Arun Kumar Raut and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., on the ground that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to that of Arun Kr. Raut and others.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 1.6.1988 alongwith 20 others on daily wages to meet the urgent requirement of manpower to combat the epidemic (Diarrhoea and Vomit-ting) spread in the area. Subsequently, the petitioner as well as other i.e., altogether 31 persons were regularised in service against permanent vacant post of Clerk/Health Eduator on 3.4.1989 and since thereafter the petitioner started working on regular basis.3. On 10.9.1993, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, issued cy...
Manorama Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1348; [2004(3)JCR70(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The writ petitioner Kashi Nath Pandey who filed the present writ petition died during its pendency and then his widow has been substituted as petitioner in his place.2. In order to test the legality and propriety of the order under challenge, contained in Annexure-13 dated 9.10.2000 by the respondent No. 3, it is relevant to notice some of the reported decisions with regard to the cases under Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972.3. While dealing with the subject, the Apex Court in the case of Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2002 (1) PLJR, 230 (SC), elaborately discussed several aspects on the subject and also the object of the scheme and on relaying the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, held as follows in paragraphs 6 to 8, which is quoted herein below :'6. The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to b...
Rurmal Agarwala Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR55(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 14/15.12.2000, by which he has been put on notice with an intimation that he would be superannuating with effect from 06.05.2001. According to the petitioner, the respondents have treated his date of birth to be 1941. The petitioner relies upon Annexure 5 which, according to him, is the extract of the Form-B Register and which shows his date of birth to be 06.05.1949. According to him therefore, he would be reaching the age of sixty in the year 2009 and consequently, the impugned notice being contrary to the Form-B Register should be ignored and set aside and he should be allowed to continue till 2009. As against the aforementioned claim of the writ petitioner, the respondents have stated in paragraph 8 that the petitioner, in connivance of an employee of the Tribunal, has tampered with the Form-...
Bhairab Mahto and ors. Vs. Dalo Ram Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR117(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to a conveyance of the property in view of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and for a further declaration that the sale deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 in the suit in favour of defendants 3 to 5 was invalid. According to the plaintiff, he was a co-sharer of the plot adjacent to the property assigned by defendant No. 1 and in terms of Section 16(3) of the Act, he had a right of pre-emption to get the suit property conveyed to him and in that context, his right in that behalf had to be declared and the sale deed executed in favour of others had to be nullified. The suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that the suit was not maintainable since it was barred by Section 43 of the Act.2. In terms of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court considered the question...
Vishnu Sahu Vs. Gobind Sahu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar9; [2004(3)JCR50(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents 1 -and 2. In the nature of the order 1 propose to make. I do not think it necessary to issue notices to respondents 4 to 7, the heirs of the brother of respondents 1 and 2.2. Respondent No. 1 herein, Gobind Sahu filed a suit for partition of the ancestral properties and for a declaration that certain properties standing in his name are not available for partition. Gopi Sahu, respondent No. 2 herein resisted that suit. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition upholding the claim of Gobind Sahu, the plaintiff. It held that Gobind Sahu was entitled to 1/3 share in the ancestral properties and it further held that the properties standing in his name are not available for partition. Being aggrieved by this decree, Gopi Sahu filed a Title Appeal, T.A. No. 58 of 2003. It may be. noted that in the suit, the children of Gobind Sahu and the children of Gopi Sahu were not parties. The w...
Anirudh Chaterjee and anr., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Jhar111; [2004(2)JCR642(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. As these cases are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi to immediately issue the letter of extension to the State of Jharkhand and to the concerned institutes to enable them to take admission in their respective allotted Engineering Colleges pursuant to their selection in the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination for engineering for the year, 2002.3. The petitioners' case in short is that they cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part. Their career cannot be jeopardized on account of laches on the part of one or the other respondent.4. The petitioners ranked high in the merit list aspired for admission into different Regional Engineering Colleges spread throughout the country. The counselling was to begin from 13th November, 2002. This date was postponed as the Ministry...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »