Jharkhand Court April 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.
Prematha Nath Paul Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR58(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The Bihar State Housing Board by issue of Annexure 1 dated 22.9.1994 allotted the plot of land No. M/222 measuring an area of 1440 square ft. situated at Dindly, Adityapur, Jamshedpur in favour of the petitioner.3. As directed by the Housing Board, the petitioner deposited 30% of the total price amounting to Rs. 22,296/- and balance of the amount was to be paid in 60 monthly installments as fixed by the Board. Subsequently, a Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Housing Board which was registered on 5.12.1994. It is stated that after registration of the Hire Purchase Agreement on 5.12.1994 a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the Board against the price of the said plot of land allotted to him. It is further stated that 5.3.1996 was the fixed date, for giving delivery of possession of the said plot of land in question which was allotted to the petitioner b...
Bhuwaneshwar Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR57(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C. II for the State-respondents.2. The petitioner prays for salary, for the period from 01.10.1999 to 29.02.2000.3. Annexure 1 is the order of suspension and is indicative of the fact that the petitioner along with others were put under suspension for not having joined their transferred place inspite of having been relieved. The order of suspension categorically says that they would continue to be under suspension with effect from 17.12.1999 till the date they proceed to join on their transferred place. According to the petitioner, he joined on 27.03.2000. The order of suspension was revoked by order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police holding that the period from 01.10.1999 to 29.02.2000 being a period of unauthorized absence, should be decided as to whether the same would be treated as such or not. It is perhaps in this context that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›