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.
Ranjit theodore Vs. Ramawatar Ram
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR218(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.7.1989 and 31.7.1989 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1987, by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, . 2nd Additional District Judge, Singhbhum, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 27.5.1987, dismissing the Title Suit No. 62 of 1979 by 3rd Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa for specific performance of contract for sale with a direction for refund of the earnest money to the plaintiff-appellant was affirmed and the said appeal was dismissed.2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed Title Suit No. 62 of 1979 for specific performance of contract of sale of the suit properly described in Schedule A of the plaint directing the defendant-respondent to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant failing which the sale deed may be executed and registered by the Court.3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief, is t...
Kanan Bihar Das and ors. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Through Its Chairma ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR375(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner No. 1 was engaged as Foreman Trainee from January. 1967 to December 1971 (five years), the petitioner No. 2 as Trainee Supervisor for a period of three years, the petitioner No. 3 as Foreman Trainee for a period of five years. the petitioner No. 4 as Converter Foreman Trainee from April, 1967 to 13.4.1972 (5 years) and the petitioner No. 5 as Trainee Supervisor for a period of three years by the respondents.3. The petitioners were initially engaged as Trainees against the post on which they were appointed and subsequently absorbed by the respondents. Thereafter they worked in the respondents company on different posts and subsequently they obtained for Voluntary Retirement and were released from service of the company.4. The grievance of the petitioners is that their Voluntary Retirement compensation, Gratuity etc. have been calculated excluding their respective period of training and the payments have been made to them by excluding training ...
Baleshwar Singh Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, B.C.C.L. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR541(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer for the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing letter dated 7.9.2001 contained in Annexure-2 whereby the petitioner has been intimated that he is attaining the age of 60 years on 7.4.2002 and hence he would retire from service from 1.5.2002.3. The learned counsel of the petitioner has relied on Annexure-1, i.e. the service excerpts issued under the signature of the authority of the respondent B.C.C.L. and submits that his date of birth has been recorded as 11.8.1947 and therefore, he would retire from service in the year 2007 after attaining the age of retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to the copy of the Identity Card (Annexure-5) as well as An-nexure-6 wherein the date of birth was originally entered as 11.8.1947 and subsequently it has been struck off and has been made as 7.4.1942.4. The learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed that these documents hav...
Deb Kumar Choudhury Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR152(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay the remaining unpaid retirement benefits including the monetary equivalent of Earned Leave, Sick Leave, Gratuity, Pension and other dues admissible to the petitioner, who retired from the service of the respondent No. 1 on 30.4.2002. It is stated by the petitioner that after his retirement, he applied for the payment of the said amount but the respondents, neither paid the retirement benefits as aforesaid nor passed any order on the representation filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that withholding of the aforesaid retiral dues payable to the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.2. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on the statement made in the counter affidavit, submitted that a disciplinary proceeding for major penalty under Rule 29 of th...
Chandan Kumar Singh Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR154(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Sen learned counsel for the respondents.2. Some of the admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner's father expired on 17.8.1999 while he was in harness. It is also admitted that the application for compassionate appointment was made on 14.3.2001. Bereft of the circular brought on record by the respondents to the extent that an application can be filed within one year at that point of time (which was subsequently enhanced to one and half years), this Court is of the opinion that the object of compassionate appointment in the instant case apparently does not survive.3. In the case of Shri Sharikar Nunia v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors., being WP (S) No. 5814 of 2002. I have held in paragraph 8 of the Judgment that the normal procedure for appointment is 'open recruitment' following a lawful and legal procedure i.e., appointment based on vacancy followed by advertisement, screening ...
Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR106(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondents to release his arrears of salary for the months of February 2000, September 2000, October 2000, and also the arrears of salary from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.2000. The second prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to release non-practicing allowance to the petitioner from 19.6.2000 to March 2001.3. In view of the letter issued by the Government of Jharkhand dated 24.6.2002, under the signature of the Special Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, the learned, counsel for the State very fairly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the aforesaid period as stated in this writ application.4. In that view of the. matter, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period, i.e. February 2000, September 2000 and October 2000 and the salary, from 1.4.1997. to 31...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Dugda Coal Washery of B.C.C ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR684]; [2004(3)JCR122(Jhr)]; (2005)ILLJ34Jhar
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this application, the Management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Bokaro, has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 75 of 1991, whereby the Tribunal after discussing the entire materials on record has directed the Management to reinstate and regularise the concerned 35 workmen in their services with effect from 1.7.1990 with payment of 30 per cent full back wages after holding as follows :(i) That the name of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Limited, the Construction Company drawn by the Management is simply a paper arrangement from April, 1986 onwards and is , a sham and camouflage to show that they are working under the contractor-company, whereas, the fact is that the workmen were directly under the control and supervision of the Washery Management for running the Plant commercially for the benefit of the Management and they were being paid ...
B.P. Sinha Vs. the Chairman and Appellate Authority, Steel Authority o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR629(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner who was holding the post of Deputy Chief Material Manager in Grade E-5 in the Purchase Department of Bokaro Steel Plant was charge-sheeted and was proceeded depart-mentally for the following charges quoted hereinbelow :--'It has been reported that Sri B.P. Sinha while processing the case for procurement of G.I. Pipes issued LTE to M/s Steel Man and had thus committed the following act of commission and omission : Sri B.P. Sinha issued inquiry to M/s Steel Man for supply of G.I. Pipes without approved from GM (MMJ/ED (MM) as the party is not registered with BSL for G.I. Pipes. The party is registered with BSL for supply of some other items. By the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, Sri B.P. Sinha has contravened clause Nos. 4.0(i)(ii) and 5.0(5) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977.2. The detail of the charges was that an MPR dated 13.10.1997 was raised for supply of G.I. Pipes at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,94,000/-.For proc...
Chandra Shekhar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC290
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11th March, 2003, passed by learned A.D.J., Chatra in S.T. No. 246 of 1994, whereby and whereunder charges under Sections 304B and 34, I.P.C. have been framed against the petitioners.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the charges have been framed by the Court below without considering the materials on record and without application of mind.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased admittedly committed suicide. It is further submitted that in Paragraph No. 19 of the case diary it has come that the suicidal note has been left by the deceased. From that part of the case diary and other materials, available on record, no charge can be framed for the offence under Sections 304B and 34 of IPC.4. Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 informant, submitted that the marriage took place on 25th May, 1989. Thereafter several demands were made and deceased was also...
Ram Naresh Jha (Dr.) Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR208(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Dispute relates the payment of salary to the petitioner for the periods November, 2002, to August, 2003.3. The fact of this case lies in a very narrow compass. In August, 2001 petitioner was transferred to Koderma Block as Animal Husbandry Officer where he joined on 6.8.2001. By notification dated 21.8.2002, petitioner was transferred from Koderma to Bhandriya Block in the district of Garhwa. Against the order of transfer the petitioner filed representation but in the meantime, petitioner was relieved from Koderma for joining at the transfer place of posting on 30.10.2002. Thereafter the order of transfer dated 21.8.2002, was stayed by notification dated 31.8.2002. Consequently by letter dated 4.1.2003, the respondent informed the petitioner about the stay of the transfer order and asked him to join in the earlier place of posting. The petitioner's case on the one hand is that after the order of transfer he did not hand over the charge on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »