Jharkhand Court May 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.
Jai Prakash Narayan Singh and anr. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR621(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1, who was posted as Loading/Despatch Clerk (UDC) was served with a charge sheet dated 21.10.1995 containing the following charges, which are quoted below :-'It has been reported that on 16.10.1995 at about 8.30 a.m. when Sri B. Tripathy, Additional CME/Project Officer, KOCP was on his way to attend his duty in Company's Car No. BRM 7584 you alongwith others forcibly stopped the said car at Jubilee Regional Hospital More. As soon as the said car was-stopped you alongwith Sri Babu Lal Manjhi, Ward Boy of JRH, Kedla Nagar and others dragged him out of the car and abused him in the following languages :SHALEY KO AAJ JAAN SE MARKAR FEK DENA HAI YEH SHALLA BARKA OFFICER BANTA HAI.Thereafter you alongwith others prostrated him on the ground and assaulted him with list, foot and iron rod severely. Due to this Sri B.R. Tripathy got severe internal injury and one of the ribs of Sri Tripathy w...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fu ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR285(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. CWJC No. 2356 of 1997R was initially filed challenging the order dated 23.6.1997 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur holding that the writ petitioner. M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (TELCO) was liable to make contributions under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of convoy drivers who drive the vehicles manufactured by the petitioner company to different destinations for supply to the distributors. Though, this Court while admitting the writ petition stayed all further proceedings pursuant to that order, this Court subsequently modified that order and permitted the Provident Fund Commissioner to make a final order, but directed him not to enforce that order until further orders from this Court. Thereupon, the Provident Fund Commissioner passed another order dated 24.6.1999 quantifying the amount to be contributed by the petitioner company. Thereupon, the petitioner c...
State of Jharkhand Through Department of Labour Employment and Trainin ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1097]; [2005(1)JCR220(Jhr)]; (2005)IILLJ345Jhar
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The respondents in WP (C) No. 3309 of 2002 on the file of this Court are the appellants in this appeal. They challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge holding that the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 20(2) of the Act and direct the payment of the difference in the wages paid and the minimum wages fixed. The proceeding under the Act was launched on a complaint by the Inspector under, the Act stating that the employer had paid to the employees wages below the minimum wages fixed under the statue. The learned Single Judge held that the question of jurisdiction or the lack of it on the authority under the Minimum Wages Act stood concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335, and the subsequent decision following it, in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha, AIR 1991 SC 520. The ...
State of Jharkhand Rep. by Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Govern ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR752(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard.2. Even before the arbitrator had filed the award in Court, the first respondent herein and the parties to the contract had filed an application which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1997 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at. Seraikella raising objections to the award. That miscellaneous application was numbered as Title Suit No. 11 of 1997. It was dismissed on the ground that it was premature and that an objection to the award cannot be filed in Court before the award itself was filed in Court. That order was challenged by the first respondent herein in Civil Revision No. 421 of 1999.3. It is seen that, subsequently the award was filed in Court by the arbitrator. Then the first respondent sought to file another objection which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1997 objecting to the award. Civil Revision No. 421 of 1999, meanwhile, came-up. for hearing. This Court by order dated 14.1.2000 dismissed the revision but it dir...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR210(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner company, prays inter alia for quashing the demand made by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur under the provision of the Bihar Land (Surcharge on Rent) Ordinance 1977 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition being in the nature of surcharge on rent together with 13% interest per annum for the period 1978-79 to 1988-89 (sic) amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,62,88,775.89 Paise (Rupees One Crore Sixty Two Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Five and Paise Eighty Nine Only) in respect of the lease hold premises of the company which were demised unto it by Deed of Lease dated 1.8.1985 (forming part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 9.4.2004). The petitioners further pray for quashing the notice dated 18.9.1991 and the requisition for certificate, both having been issued under the provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, and as contained ...
Mahendra Modi Vs. Gobardhan Lal
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar124; [2004(4)JCR603(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the opposite party appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 24.6.1996 passed in Guardianship Case No. I of 1991 by Shri Molilal Hansdah, 1st Additional District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the said guardianship case was allowed appointing applicant-respondent as guardian of the person of Mastar Vikram.2. The applicant respondent, who is the natural maternal grand father of Master Vikram, had filed the said guardianship case Under Section 7 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 for his appointment as guardian of the person of the said minor.3. The case of the applicant respondent, in brief, is that the marriage of his daughter Anju was solemnized with opposite party-respondent Mahendra Modi on 7.2.1988 in accordance with Hindu religion and rites and she had gone to her matrimonial home in the company of her husband on the following day of the marriage and in the said marriage he had met all the de...
Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. T.M.S. Engineering and Construction Compan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR437(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant (who was defendant No. 2 in the suit) has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.1995 and 08.03.1995 respectively passed by Shri Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Sub-Judge VI. Ranchi in Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 whereby and whereunder the said title suit was decreed in part directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs, 25'51,568.16 paise along with interest pendente lite and future @ 6% within three months.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 on 15.09.1976 against the defendant-appellant and proforma defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a declaration that the goods mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint were taken over from the custody of the plaintiff-respondent on 18.09.1973 and 19.09.1973 illegally and without any authority of law and they did not vest in the Central Government and subsequently ..in the Coal Mines Authority Limited and its succ...
Bijendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar Through Home Secretary and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR511(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, a constable in Bihar Military Police, was proceeded departmentally for the following charges :'(i) That while on deputation to D.A.V. School, Hazaribagh on 8.5.1996 at 19.45 Hrs. he abused and pushed down constable 104 Fuleshwar Mandal.(ii) That the same night while constable 104 Fuleshwar Mandal was asleep he assaulted him on his chest by his boots with the result that constable Mandal had to be shifted to hospital by the Sargent Major, Hazaribagh for first aid. As the paid of constable Mandal continued next day also he was admitted in the Hospital and was discharged on 13.5.1996 A gist of his incident was recorded in station diary No. 290/96; dated 9.5.1996 of Sadar Police Station.'3. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report as contained in Annexure-2 whereby he gave benefit of doubt to the petitioner.4. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the entire materials as we...
Nayeb Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR506b(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the Parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in letter dated 20.10.2001 (Annexure-6) issued under signature of the Project Officer, Damagoria Colliery, BCCL, informing the petitioner that on the basis of the recommendation of the Date of Birth Committee, whereby the age of the petitioner was assessed as 45 years on 21.7.1986 and, therefore, his case for retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was rejected and it was decided to stop the petitioner from duty and his name was put off from the Rolls of the company with immediate effect.3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Dozer/Scriber Operator by the respondents in the year 1975 and at the time of his joining the petitioner gave his date of birth as 4/11/1945, which was recorded in Form 'B' Register as well as the other statutory records kept in the Colliery. He was also issued Identity Card wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 4/11/1...
Umar Sheikh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR510(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, a retired panchayat sewak, has filed this application for quashing the letter as contained in Annexure-4 dated 5.10.2001 issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner , Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been informed that unless and until genuineness and validity of the educational certificate of the petitioner is established, it is not possible to provide retiral benefit to him. By the said letter the Deputy Commissioner, as asked the petitioner to submit the documents mentioned in the said letter, e.g. like the Marks-sheet, Certificate, Copy of Admit Card, Name of the Examination Center as well as Roll Number and the year of passing the matriculation examination.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid his salary for 24 months while he was posted at Baghmara Block and then he has also not been paid salary for 28 months while he was posted at Tundi Block. It is stated that the respondent No. 5 by issuing letter da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »