Jharkhand Court August 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.
Dhibu Mahto Vs. the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR744(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.6.2004 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No. 4 whereby his representation has been rejected and it is held that, petitioner will superannuate on 30.9.2004.3. Petitioner's case is that his age recorded in the service book and other records was 28 years when, he joined in his service on 18.10.1977 and accordingly he will retire after completion of 60 years on 17.10.2009 but at the fag end of his service he was asked to appear before the Medical Board and accordingly he appeared on 11.9.1999 where the petitioner's age was assessed 54-56.(55 years) on 11.9.1999 and accordingly he has been made retire on 30.9.2004. In this way, he is made to retire five years before his actual date of retirement. It is further submitted that petitioner's case is covered by the case of Permanand Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board. reported in 2001 (2) SCC 191.4. The stand of the respondents is that on rece...
Balmiki Prasad Singh Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR74(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add General Manager, Electrical Supply, Nayabazar, Dhanbad as party-responmdent No. 6.2. Heard, Petitioner prays for a direction for payment of his retiral benefits such as Group Saving Scheme, Gratuity for 16 months, General Provident Fund, Arrears on revision in pay scale from 1997 to 1999 and pension etc. It is submitted that petitioner retired on 31.12.2003 as Bench Clerk, Electricity Supply. Nayabazar, Dhanbad. It is further submitted that in-spite of representation, retiral benefit has not been provided to the petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter will be looked into. He further submitted that so far as arrears on revision of pay scale is concerned, the same is to be paid in instalments in view of the recent decision of the Board.4. In- the circumstances, petitioner should make fresh representation before the General Manager, Electricity Supply, Nayabazar, Dhanbad, re...
Bishun Mahato and anr. Vs. Raho Khalifa and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar85; [2004(4)JCR94(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The substantial question to be answered in this appeal is 'Whether in terms of the compromise, Exhibits-5 and 7, the sale deed, Exhibit-A/2, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is legal and valid?'. During the course of hearing, no further substantial question of law was raised.2. The dispute is with regard to 33 decimal of land (Schedule A to the plaint) having a well and house in Khata No. 167 plot No. 1326 of village-Barsot, P.S. Barhi, Hazaribagh, bounded in north by Gautam Rasul, South G.T. Road, East Rasta, West-Ramchandra Mahto. The plaintiffs claim the lands on the basis of two registered sale deed each for 16 1/2 decimals of land, Ext. 3, 3/A, executed by Jangli Khalifa son of Dukhan Khalifa on 10.12.1981, for consideration of Rs. 19,000/- and possession thereof by living in the house and cultivating the land so purchased. The said land was sold by defendant No. 1, Raho Khalifa, a brother of Dukhan (father of vendors of plai...
Shrenik Bhai Kasturbhai and ors. Vs. Ganpat Rai JaIn and ors.,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1611; [2004(4)JCR1(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, CJ.1. These appeals arise from two cross suits, Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 and Title Suit No. 23 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Giridih. Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 was filed by nine persons said to be the managing trustees of Seth Anandji Kalyani Trust of Ahmadabad, claimed to be a Trust registered under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1953 and submitting that the said institution is a representative institution of the Swetambar Murti Pujak Jain Community of India. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs were suing also in their individual capacities representing Swetambar Murti Pujak Jain Community of India. Sanction to sue in terms of Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also sought for. The suit was essentially against six defendants in their individual capacity and also as representing the Digambar Jain Community of India. Defendants 1 to 6 were sought to be sued as representing the Digambar Jain Community...
Vithal Purushottam Dandekar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR98(Jhr)]
1. This writ petition challenges the determination of the ceiling area of the writ petitioner under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The writ petitioner filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Act on 30.11.1976. A notice was issued to him under Section 8 of the Act on 12.3.1997. In the notice, certain lands included in village Pandrapala not included in the return filed by him were also proposed to be included while making the final determination. The petitioner filed objections. He contended that the land was agricultural land and was situate in a village that did not come within the purview of Schedule 1 to the Act. As regards the extent in Bhuli, sought to be included, it was contended that the land was within the ceiling limit. The authority held that the land in mouza Bhuli was liable to be included as it was part of an urban agglomeration. It was also held that the lands in Pandrapala were also liable to be included. The petitioner was found liable to surrender...
Bhalotia Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Jharkhand)619; [2005]275ITR399(Jharkhand); [2004(4)JCR502(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench has referred the following question for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.'Whether the acceptance of share application money in case amounting to Rs. 20,000/- or more violates the provisions of Section 269SS.' 2. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1990-91, it was found by the assessing officer that the assessee, a private limited company, had accepted amounts ofRs. 20.000/- and more in cash from ten persons as entered in its books. The assessments were completed on that basis. But the order of assessment is not before us. Thus, the receipt by the assessee of sums in cash exceeding Rs. 20.000/- (rupees twenty thousand) during the relevant assessment year is not in dispute before us. Holding that the amounts were received in cash in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. the assessing officer initiated a penalty ...
Sushil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR497(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 29.6.2004 whereby petitioner and respondent No. 6 has been ordered to remain at their post though they were transferred by the earlier order dated 16.6.2004.3. Petitioner's case is that he was transferred by order dated 16.6.2004 from Mahuatar to Chandwa. He gave his Joining to the Assistant Engineer on 18.6.2004 by Annexure-2 and thus the order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 was given effect to. Therefore, by subsequent order dated 29.6.2004, petitioner and respondent No. 6 could not be ordered to remain at their earlier place.4. The main question is whether the order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 was given effect to or not.5. It appears that by order dated 16.6.2004, 61 officers were, transferred. Respondent No. 6 was transferred from Chandwa to Murhu Block, Ranchi at the place of one Ajay Kumar Sharma and petitioner was transferred from Mahuatar to Chandwa at the place of respondent No. 6....
Binay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR796(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the 'parties with their consent, this writ petition is being dlsposed-off at his stage.2. The petitioner, who was posted as an Inspector (Execution) in the Central Industrial Security Force Onit at Bokaro applied for earned leave for 25 (twenty five) days for the period 28.2.2001 to 24.3.2001. He was required to report back on 23.3.2001.3. On 22.3.2001, the petitioner seftt a letter for extension of his leave on account of having fallen ill with hepatitis. That application is Annexures 3, and upon perusal thereof it is evident that the petitioner supported his case by submitting photostat copies of medical certificates and reports of the pathological examinations. These reports are Annexure 2 and Annexure 9 series. Annexure 9 beginning at page 39 shows diagnosis as hepatitis advising complete rest for 15 (fifteen) days. It is dated 23.1.2001. At page 40 it is evident that the petitioner was re-examined on 5.4.2001 and he was advised a further rest of 15 (fift...
Jaideo Prasad Vs. Ravikant Sinha
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR676(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This is the plaintiff appellant's appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the District Judge, Giridih inT.A. No. 18 of 1999.2. The plaintiff filed a Title Suit No. 176 of 1997/1998 of 1999 in the Court of IVth Additional Munsif, Giridih praying relief for a direction to the defendant to accept the consideration amount and to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff.3. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that he was the owner of the suit property in respect of the plot No. 176 area 0.66-1/2 acres and plot No. 177 area 0.59 acres total area 1.25-1/2 acres under Khata No. 22 of village Mandra P.S. Gandey, District Giridih. The plaintiff was in need of Rs. 8000/- and as such he approached the defendant, who agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 8000/- on condition of executing the sale deed in respect of the suit land and tank in favour of the defendant. It was then agreed that defendant would execute an a...
Syed Md. Hood Kabri Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR91(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner a Sub-Inspector of Police superannuated on 31.12.1999 while he was posted at Bokaro. It is stated that till the date of superannuation he was getting the monthly salary in the basic pay scale of Rs. 7,600/- and he was getting a total sum of Rs. 11,182-00/- per month. It is further stated that vide Memo No. 1760, dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure-4), the petitioner's provisional pension, provisional gratuity and other retiral benefits were revised to a sum of Rs. 3318/- with effect from 1.1.2000. The said fixation of pension was made considering the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 7425/-.3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing CWJC No. 2692 of 2000 (R) which was disposed of on 13.2.2001 as contained in Annexure-5, remitting the matter back to the respondents directing the petitioner to move before the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, regarding his grievance relating to fixation of pension and payment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »