Jharkhand Court June 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.
Kusum Devi, Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR343(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. These writ petitions are directed against the common order, dated 4.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Nos. 172, 173 and 182 of 1998, whereby revisions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed and orders passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act and the orders passed by the Additional Collector in appeals filed by the petitioners have been affirmed.3. The brief facts of the case are that the land of Khata No. 135 situated at village Gari was held and possessed by Sanicharwa Oraon and Bhokre Oraon as recorded Raiyats. In 1941, the recorded Raiyats applied before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (in short the Act), seeking permission to transfer the land in favour o...
Ram Lakhan Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR398(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or an order for quashing the order dated 26.3.2004, as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition, whereby respondent No. 3, Deputy Chief Election Officer, Jharkhand, Ranch! has directed respondent No. 4, Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan to continue respondent No. 5 on the post of Anchal Adhikari, Gamharia and also for quashing the letter No. 192, dated 26.3.2004 issued by respondent No. 4, directing respondent No. 5 to continue to work as Circle Officer, Gamharia as well as in the noticed area, Adityapur.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Anchal Adhikari, Nirsa in the district of Dhanbad to the post of Anchal Adhikari, Gamharia in the district of Seraikella-Khasawan by notification dated 27.12.2003. At the same time, respondent No. 5 was transferred from the post of Anchal Adhi...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR380(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the orders as contained in the letter No. 1994, dated 21.11.2003, and letter dated 17.1.2004, whereby respondent No. 4, the Divisional Forest Officer, South Forest Division, Daltonganj, Medninagar, Palamau directed the petitioner not to carry on mining operation without the prior approved of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and also not to use and undertake the repair work of the road, namely, Hami-Orsa Road.2. The case of the petitioner-M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (in short the Company) is that in the year 1985-86 a mining lease was granted in respect of mineral 'Bauxite' in the districts of Latehar, Palamau, Lohardaga and Gumla within the State of Jharkhand. On 29.1.1985, a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 411.85 acres of land for a period of 20 years. Another lease was granted on 17.7.1986, in respect of 764 acres of land in village Orsa in the district of Palamau for a period...
Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR399(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication contained in letter No. 6112, dated 10.12.2003 of the Government of Jharkhand in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms by which it has been conveyed to the Vigilance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna that the Government of Jharkhand has accorded sanction under Section 197 Cr PC to prosecute the petitioner and further for quashing the communication contained in letter No. 6814, dated 15.12.2003 of the Government of Jharkhand on the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department informing the Director, Vigilance DOPI, Government of India, New Delhi that the State Government has accorded sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the petitioner and a request has been made to the Government of India to accord sanction.2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner inter alia are that he is an IAS Officer of 1970 batch and was allotted Jharkhan...
Bimalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(3)JCR394(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties.2. The instant proceeding for contempt has been initiated at the instance of the petitioner for the alleged violation of the interim order dated 21.1.2004 passed in WPS No. 298 of 2004.3. The aforementioned WPS No. 298 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2.1.2004 whereby he had been transferred from the post of Surveyor, Bermo Mines, DVC, Bermo and posted at MTPS, DVC, Mejia. The writ petition was heard at the admission stage on 21.1.2004 and following order was passed :--'Mr. Tapash Kabiraj, learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit.Put up this case on 19th February, 2004. In the meantime, status quo as exists today shall be maintained.'4. In the instant contempt petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents flouted the af...
Ranchi Cinema Employees Union Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR401(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner Ranchi Cinema Employees Union has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi dated 27.7.1996 in Reference Case No. 10 of 1985, whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the workman are not entitled to get any scale of pay or any DA and further that they are not entitled to get uniforms or uniform allowances.2. The facts in short giving rise to this application are that an appropriate Government referred the following dispute to theTribunal for adjudication :-(i) Whether the pay-scale of different categories of workman employed in the cinema house of Ranchi are required to be fixed? it so, what should be the pay-scales of the different categories of the workman and from which date it should be effective?(ii) Whether the workers employed in the cinema houses of the Ranchi should be paid dearness allowance also in addition to their pay-scale? Thereafter, if so what should be the rate of the Dearness Allowances for the different categori...
Ravi Gopal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4769
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this application filed under Section 482 , Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21-1-2003 passed by Additional Session Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2001 and the order dated 25-6-2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate , Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No. 195 of 2001 by which cognizance of the offence under Sections 400, 408, 409, 420, 468 and 120B IPC has been taken against the petitioner.2. The opposite party No. 2 who is the complainant filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar alleging inter alia that he was elected to the office of honorary Secretary of Deoghar Cooperative Gramin Bank and started discharging duties. However the complainant was removed from the office on 1-4-1999 and against that order he preferred a revision before the Registrar Co-operative Societies. The Registrar Co-operative Societies set aside the order of removal and allowed him to remain in the office of the Secretary. By the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›