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.
Anirudh Dayal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR74a(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5; Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3; and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 7 and with their consent this Writ Petition is being disposed off.2. At the outset Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he may be allowed to delete the name of Respondent No. 6, as he has got nothing to do with this case.3. The claim of the Petitioner is for a direction upon the concerned authority to promote the Petitioner from the post of Lecturer to the post of a Reader as he has already been screened by a Selection Committee constituted by the University and also because that Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner on 19.6.2001. The grievance of the Petitioner, amongst others, is that other Lecturers, some of whom, were even junior to him, have...
Gajendra Kumar Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR411(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of (he Award dated 15.10.1996 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Ranchi in Reference Case No. 2 of 1990. By the said impugned Award the Presiding Officer held that the concerned workman is not a workman under the definition of I.D. Act. of the management of HEC, Ltd, and it is not an industrial dispute between the concerned man and management and that the reference is bad in law.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as an Assistant Grade-Ill by the management of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the H.E.C.) and was posted at Turn Key Project Division of the HEC. The petitioner became permanent after working continuously for one year. The job of the petitioner was perennial in nature. According to him. from the very beginning he was not paid the admissible scale of pay. When the petitioner demanded, the same was refused by the manageme...
Project Officer, Giddi a Colliery Ccl Vs. Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC346; 2005ACJ418; [2004(4)JCR417(Jhr)]; (2005)ILLJ891Jhar
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is directed against the order dated 30,9.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer -cum-Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No. 2 of 2000 whereby he has allowed a total compensation of Rs. 80.000/-(Rupees Eighty thousand) on the application filed by respondent No. 1 on account of death of his father,2. A claim case was filed by the applicant/respondent No. 1 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (In short the said Act) for the grant of compensation on account of accidental death of his father Ram Ball Chaurasiya. an employee employed under the appellant/Central Coalfields Ltd., Hazaribagh.3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased Ram Ball Chaurasiya was working as labour in Giddi 'A' Colliery of the then NCDC which was subsequently merged in Central Coalfields Ltd. On 6.7.1968 while his father had been on his duty inside the coal mines, due to fall of heavy piece...
AlimuddIn Ansari and ors. Vs. Wasia Khatoon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR700(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even before the appeal was heard and the judgment was rendered by the lower appellate Court, respondent No. 17 before that Court had died. What is attempted in this Second Appeal is to file an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of that respondent without giving them an opportunity to participate in the proceeding before the lower appellate Court. It appears to me that it is not permissible to do so on the Scheme of the Code. As far as respondent No. 17 is concerned, the decree of the lower appellate Court is a decree against a dead person, which the Supreme Court has held, is void. At least as far as respondent No. 17 is concerned, the decree of the lower appellate Court must be taken to be void. The remedy available in such a case is to approach the lower appellate Court, especially in the context of the' fact that the appellant herein was the appellant in that Court, to get the ...
Rohit Das and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4; I(2005)DMC420
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal is directed at the instance of the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 27-9-1999 and 29-9-1999 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1998 by Shri Prabodh Ranjan Dash, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and they were each convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three year's respectively and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, co-accused Ughan Das and Bhudeo Das were not found guilty and they were, accordingly, acquitted.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of P.W. 8 etkaha Das, the father of Mirkhi Devi, the deceased of this case, recorded by S. I. Shivjee Prasad Singh, Officer-in-Charg...
Sk. Jahir @ Bhutku and ors. Vs. Sk. Mahboob and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR177(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the proforma defendant-respondent-appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming their 4/5th share in the suit property. The case of the plaintiff-respondents in brief was that they are the descendants of one common ancestor Ashique Mandal. Ashique Mandal had two sons, Gudri Mandal and Badri Mandal. The suit khata was recorded in the names of Gudri Mandal and Badri Mandal, but their respective separate possession was recorded in the remarks column of the record of rights. The suit lands are the lands exclusively shown in possession of Gudri Mandal. According to the plaintiff, Gudri had five daughters, namely, Madni, Ashni, Sadni, Nazinan and Lukho. The plaintiffs claimed to be the descendants of Madni, Sadni, Nazinan and Lukho and the defendants first party (not the appellants here) were, the descendants of Ashni and Madni. The appellants are the descendants of Badri Mandal whose land has not been include...
Dr. Kaushal Kishore Shrivastava Vs. Dr. Heem Bachan Sahu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR602(Jhr)]
1. Heard Mr. Jerath, counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Piparwal, counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and counsel for the contesting respondent.2. For the post of Director, Higher Education, applications were invited by the first Jharkhand State Public Service Commission, attempted to be created by the appointment only of the Chairman and one Member. 47 applications were received. The Jharkhand State Public Service Commission or its Secretary, as it is found by the learned single Judge, purported to eliminate 42 of the applicants and short listed only five candidates including the appellant, for being interviewed by the interview board constituted by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission created in a truncated form. This was challenged in the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that there was no valid constitution, of the Public Service Commission in the State after its formation and. hence, the action of the Chairman and the Member or the Secretary in elimi...
Sri Ganesh Fabrics and ors. Vs. Smt. Sita Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR96(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. The substantial questions of law to be answered in this second, appeal are :(A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court could have reversed the findings of the trial Court by merely relying or oral evidence of witnesses and ignoring documentary evidence?(B) Whether in view of admission of the plaintiff as well as Ext. 6, the learned lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff was the landlord of the suit premises?(C) Whether a mere suit for ejectment under the B.B.C. Act, 1982 is maintainable against a co-owner?(D) Whether a family arrangement made between the co-sharers requires registration?The appellant was at liberty to raise any other points at the time of hearing of this appeal, but no fresh question was raised.2. The questions aforesaid arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff-respon-dent filed a suit against defendant- appellants for eviction from the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of default in payment ...
Krishna Kumar Mahato and ors. Vs. Sukhlal Rewani and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR231(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. In this second appeal the substantial question of law, to be answered is :-'Whether the gift of public in general is valid ?'While framing the aforesaid question at the time of admission the appellants had been given liberty to raise other substantial questions of law, if available, at the time of hearing of this appeal. Taking advantage of this liberty one substantial question has been raised :-whether or not a gift can be made for creating a Samshanghat in contravention of law i.e. .Municipal Act or the Panchayat Raj Act ?2. The question aforesaid arose out of the following facts : One Haripada Mahato executed a deed of gift (Ext. C) to 21 per- sons for the purpose of creation of a Samshanghat as people of that area were feeling difficulty in disposing of the dead bodies. That deed of gift was attested, registered and that was produced in the Court by one of those 21 persons. It also transpires that a mutation petition was filed by those 21 persons but that ...
Phulpati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR78(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing, for the Boards.2. In view of the order which I intend to pass, it is not necessary to hear respondent No. 6.3. The only prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent Electricity Board should be directed to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment given to respondent No. 6, namely Mamta Kuwar.4. It is submitted that respondent No. 6 was given employment on compassionate ground as her husband died due to negligence on the part of the Board. It is further submitted that as per the terms of appointment, respondent No. 6 is obliged to maintain the family members of the deceased but she is not maintaining them. It is further submitted that on the representations made by the petitioner enquiry has been done by the different authorities, in which it was found that respondent No. 6 is not complying with the said terms of her appointment.5. Learned Counsel for the Board submit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »