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.
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR594(Jhr)]; [2005]139STC62(Jharkh)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The writ petitioner was a assessee under the Bihar Finance Act. The writ petitioner, among other things, manufactures and sells cement. It had two factories for manufacture of cement within the State of Bihar. One was at Sindri and other was in Chaibasa. Both the units at Sindri and Chaibasa had separate registrations under Section 14 (corresponding to present Section 13) of the Bihar Act. The Company claimed that it had different outlets for sale of cement within the State of Bihar and sought permission to be registered in Patna Circle by invoking Rule 3(4} of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. Such permission was granted and the Company was filing its returns before the concerned officer in Patna.2. After reorganisation of the State under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, with effect from 15.11.2000, Sindri and Chaibasa became part of the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner, the assessee, continued to have separate registrations for the manufacturing units...
Nicco Jubliee Park Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR7(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This writ petition filed by M/s. Nicco Jubilee Park Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 9.5.2003 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, directing the company to furnish security for the purpose of issuance of a registration certificate under the Bihar Entertainments Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for directing a refund to be made pursuant to a revisional order for quashing the orders and notices demanding tax under the Act and for a declaratory relief that until the respondents issue a proper notification under Section 5(2) of the Act specifying the company as a place of entertainment, the liability of the company under the Act does not commence and for other ancillary reliefs connected therewith. Subsequently, LA. No. 334/04 was filed for an amendment of the writ petition by seeking to challenge the two demands made to the company for...
Chadra Munda and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3369
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27-11-2001, passed by Sri R.R. Verma, learned 1st Additional Judicial Com missioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2003, arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 65 of 1981 (G.R. No. 595 of 1991), whereby and whereunder, appellant No. 1 Chadra Munda and appellant No. 3 Mansukh Munda have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and six months respectively whereas appellant No. 2 Jaipal Munda has been convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six moths and six months respectively. All the appellants have furtherbeen convicted for the offence under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The learned 1st Additional ...
Rajendra Mandal and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC837
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Both the appellants, named above, have preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th December, 1999, passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1997, arising out of Bagodar (Suriya) P.S. Case No. 20 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No. 246 of 1997, whereby and whereunder both of them have been convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. However, it has been ordered that both the sentences in each count in respect of both the convicts shall run concurrently.2. The facts leading to the present case are that P.W. 3 Tukani Ma...
Abdul Wadood and anr. and Bhagwan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR693(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two writ applications since common question of law and facts are involved, the same are being, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners are challenging the notification as contained in Memo No. 1533 dated, 24.11.2003 issued under the signature of Secretary to the Government, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby admission of the petitioners made in the Government Polytechnic, Ranchi and Dhanbad for part time Diploma Engineering Course for the Session 2001-2004 and 2002-2005 has been cancelled.3. Petitioners case is that Department of Science and Technology Government of Jharkhand constituted a committee in the year 1996/2002 for taking admission in 4 years Part Time Diploma Course in the Govt. Polytechnic, Ranchi and Dhanbad. An advertisement was made in the year 2002 inviting applications for admission in 4 years Part Time Course for the Session 2001-04 and 2002-05. Pursuant to that advertisement, petitioners...
Damodar Inder Guru Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR156(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing the order dated 26.11.2001 as contained in Annexure 3 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary for the period from 1.7.1990 to 13.11.1991 has been rejected. Further prayer is for direction to the respondent to pay the salary for the aforesaid period to the petitioner.3. The facts of the matter in short are that the petitioner, who is a Village Level Worker (VLW), his appointment to the said post was cancelled on 28.6.1990. The petitioner challenged the said cancellation of his appointment before this Court in CWJC No. 1310 of 1999 (R). By Annexure 1 dated 15.7.1991 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ application and quashed the order for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Consequently, by order dated 14.11.1991 the petitioner was taken back in service and was posted again at his previous place ...
Mahavir Rolling Mills Vs. Jharkhand of State Electricity Board and anr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR113(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the respondent-Board.2. In this writ application petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant electrical connection to the petitioner Unit which has been refused by the Board on the ground that there is huge electricity dues against the erstwhile owner of the said Unit and further for quashing the letter dated 7.4.2004 issued by Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Electricity Board by which he has communicated to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi that Board is not legally bound to give connection to the petitioner until outstanding dues are paid by erstwhile consumer M/s. Roll Well Enterprises.3. The case of the petitioner-firm is that it has taken the Unit on lease from the erstwhile proprietor namely, M/s. Roll Well Enterprises and a lease deed to that effect was executed by the partners of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›