Jharkhand Court June 2004 Judgments
Binita Bartiyar and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sinha and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1236; [2005(1)JCR517(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The appellants are the widow and children of Late Pramod Kumar Bartiyar who died in an unfortunate Motor accident which took place on 18.10.1999 by Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR 14-B-6908 at Charhi Road, Hazaribagh. The deceased was aged 40 years and was posted as Senior Inspector in Steel Authority of India Limited and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 11,189/- p.m. The claimants-appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 70 lakhs.2. The claims Tribunal took into consecration the net monthly salary i.e. Rs. 8,860/- which the deceased used to bring home after getting certain deduction, and calculated the annual Salary at Rs. 1,06,320/- and capitalized it on 12 year's purchase which come to Rs. 12,75,840/-. After deducting one third from the total amount the tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 8,50,560/- and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. The Tribunal further held that if this amount of compensation (Rs. 8,50,560/-) is kept in long term fixed deposit for which the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Janathan Das Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR251(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saurav Arun assisted by Mr. Krishna Shankar for the respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of a portion of the award dated 8.4.1984 passed in Reference Case No. 20 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur refused the relief of reinstatement after holding that the order of dismissal passed against him was proper and therefore, instead of passing an order of reinstatement, he proceeded to award compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- which was supposed to be paid by the Management within six weeks from the date of pronouncement of the award failing which, it was ordered that the workman concerned would be entitled to realise the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the award till the date of payment-3. The petitioner underwent, the disciplinary proceedings on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Dobya Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR298(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. At the very outset I must express my serious anguish and displeasure towards the manner in which the cases are conducted by the State Counsels, 1 am told by Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P.I, that earlier the file was allotted to the then G.P.I, who did not transfer the brief to him. It is the business of the office of the Advocate General, where the ministerial staffs are deputed, to see that files are duly handed over to the State counsels. Moreover, tine outgoing State counsels are supposed to hand over the briefs to the incoming State counsels.2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the District Education Officer-cum-District Superintendent of Education. Dhanbad Circle he has rejected the representation of the petitioner which was filed in pursuance of the order dated 24.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 3674/2000 R. In the aforesaid writ application No. 3674/ 2000R the petitioner represented before this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Shekhar Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR365(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The Writ Petitioners challenge the order dated 14.8.1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 1991-1992. By that order, the Deputy Commissioner, being an Appellate Authority, reversed the order dated 22.3.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara in Land Ceiling Case No. 26/1985 cancelling the settlement of land in favour of certain persons as surplus land taken possession of under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act in respect of one Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee.2. Proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act were initiated against one Nirmal Bhattareharjee who is the adopted son of Govind Kinkar Bhattacharjee and 30 acres of land was determined as being his ceiling area, in addition to certain exempted extents. This was done after a draft settlement was published, objections were heard and a final notification of surplus lands was made. The...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR798(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant, writ petition the petitioners seek an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 30.4.2004 issued by the respondents by which the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with immediate, effect on payment of three months' salary.2. The facts of the case lie in a=narrow compass :Pursuant to the direction issued by the Patna High Court, in CWJC no. 6173/92 to the State of Bihar and its authorities to perform their statutory duty in the. matter of appointment of safety officers in the different factories within the State of Bihar, the respon- dent - HEC. invited applications in 1993 for appointment of safety officers. After complying all the procedures the petitioners were appointed as safety of- ficers on 29.12.93 for six months which period was extended from time to time. Though the petitioners were appointed on regular basis but were being paid consolidated pay. In 1997 the petitioners were stopped from working as safety officers. Consequently...
Tag this Judgment!Central Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(165)ELT282; [2004(102)FLR1205]; [2004(3)JCR377(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The respondent No. 3 herein, i.e. the General Secretary, Rashtriya Washery Mazdoor Sangh, had filed CWJC No. 3488/ 1998 (R) before this Court for direction to the concerned respondents to refer the dispute arising in view of inaction of the Management of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited denying absorption the members of the petitioners union, working in Swang, Kathara and Kargali collieries. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 17.2.1999 giving liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the concerned respondents, who will consider the matter and pass an appropriate order on filing of such application by the petitioner. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application.3. Pursuant thereto, on the application of the aforesaid Rashtriya Washery Mazdoor Sangh, the Central Government by issue of Annexure-1, dated 19.3.1999, in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act referred the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Sidh Nath Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR439(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. As all these cases relate to assessment of municipal tax of Deoghar Municipality, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order,2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all the writ application is that Deoghar Municipality has arbitrarily enhanced the municipal tax, as affirmed by the appellate committee in some of the cases.3. To determine the issue, it is desirable to notice the relevant prayer and facts of the individual cases, as mentioned hereunder :W.P. (C) No. 5014/01This petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27th January, 1999, whereby, the Deoghar Municipality has increased the municipal tax by revision of assessment with effect from 1.4.1998.The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land appertaining to Holding No. 213 (New), Ward No. 12 within Deoghar Municipal Area from one Sri Dhirendra Nath Rai vide sale deed No. 3153 dated 31st December, 1997. He was paying municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 52.8...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Dinkar Minz Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR403(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. This writ petition relates to appointment of Director for the Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatric and Allied Sciences Ranchi (RINPAS). It was therefore, heard along with WP (PIL) 58 of 2004. But since on hearing the matter in detail, we felt that the public interest litigation should be disposed off separately after a local inspection, we have rendered a separate judgment therein on 21.5.2004. A separate judgment is being rendered in this writ petition on the question projected in this writ petition.2. The writ petitioner was an applicant for the post of Director of RINPAS based on Annexure 4 advertisement. The advertisement inviting applications provided that the applicant must be having thorough understanding and wide experience in the field of Psychiatry and the related areas. He should also posses strong administrative capability. He must possess a recognized Post Graduate medical qualification and other academic qualifications from a recognized inst...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR352(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. W.P.(PIL) No. 4572 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner therein claiming to be in public interest. The prayer therein is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 8 to ensure that no sewerage or affluent is drained into a public pathway in a residential area as was being done by respondent No. 9 carrying on the manufacture of soap polluting the environment. According to the petitioner, the Industry run by respondent No. 9 causes environmental pollution and the industry is run in violation of the Environment Protection Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. Respondent No. 9 the industry, resisted the application by pleading that the litigation was not a public interest litigation; that it was an engineered private interest litigation filed as a ruse to get over an order passed by the concerned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Binay Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR533(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Heard both sides.2. This is a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the opposite parties in a probate proceeding challenging the order of the Additional District Judge allowing an amendment of the application for probate.3. It is seen that the application for probate was made by the legal representatives of the alleged legatee under the Will propounded. It is seen that the legatee died before the testator died. The opposite parties had opposed the application. The applicants in the proceeding filed an application for amendment of the original application for issuance of probate by adding paragraph 10(A) to the petition by setting up a case that subsequent to the death of the legatee and during the life time of the alleged testator, the alleged testator had made a declaration that the sons of the legatee will be the beneficiaries. This application for amendment was opposed by contending that it was beyond the scope of the proceed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »