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.
Kameshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR172(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.12.2003 issued by the respondent No. 3 - Chief Engineer-cum-Additional Commissioner- cum-Special Secretary, Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has. been awarded punishment of dismissal and, for quashing of the order dated 30th January, 2004 passed by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner's departmental appeal has been rejected. The main grounds for assailing the said two orders, canvassed in the writ application, are that the impugned orders are mechanical, cryptic and non-speaking and the same have been passed in violation of rule of natural justice.2. In order to appreciate the said grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to state the relevant fact in brief.The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on 11.4.1980 and was posted in Public Works Department, Koderma Division. Except for the intervening pe...
Mithu Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR415(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the respondent No. 3 and also the order dated 14.7,2003 passed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction for release of Truck No. HR-38F-3445 which has been confiscated by the respondent No. 3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents.2. When the case is taken up for hearing Mr. Kalyan Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order has been passed finally disposing of the Confiscation Case No. 19/2002 purported in compliance of the direction of this Court vide order dated 10.7.2002 in W P (Cr.) No. 186/2002 (Annexure-1) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention on the penultimate paragraph of the said order and submitted that in that order the petitioner was directed to file a petition for release of the truck in question within two weeks with further orde...
Employer in Relation to the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR320(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. These two writ applications arise out of a common award rendered in Ref. Case No. 148 of 1993 by the Presiding Office, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-2 Dhanbad. Since the facts and questions of law being similar, these two writ applications are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the writ applications the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction quashing the said award passed on 22nd September, 1995, whereby and whereunder it was held that the demand of the union for reinstatement of the concerned workmen with full back wages is justified and further that the concerned workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service of the management of B.C.C.L Dhanbad in category No. 1 Mazdoor with full back wages from the date of their stoppage.3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Government company having its registered office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. The Central Gove...
Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ440; [2004(4)JCR47(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the order dated 13th July, 2004 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 350 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to reject the petition preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 205 Cr PC praying therein to dispense with his personal appearance during the trial subject to any condition.2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant (OP No. 2) is full brother of petitioner and now become inimical to the petitioner. Only for the purpose of harassment, the complainant has preferred a number of complaint cases against the petitioner including the present complaint petition for the charges under Sections 454, 427 and 380 IPC. The complainant is the eldest son of Sri Anand Swaroop Gupta, who wants to grab the entire property of his younger brother by way of instituting false cases against his f...
Major Baldev Singh Guleria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR471(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to include the left out Army Medical Corps (Non-Tech) Commissioned Officer cadre for promotion to substantive cadre of different cadres/ corps, similarly granted to substantive cadre of the whole Army except AMC (Non-Tech) in terms of Vth Pay Commission Recommendation which has been implemented by the Government of India by letter No.-14(i)98/D(AG) dated 14th January, 2000.2. According to the petitioner, by the said order the revised years of service required for promotion to substantive cadre of whole Army except AMC (Non-Tech) Officers have been sanctioned by the Government of India and the petitioner's promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (T.S.) is not being considered due to aforesaid non-inclusion of his name and the Junior officers who have lesser years of service have been promoted on the basis of the said order. The petitione...
Sushil Kumar Vengra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1094]; [2005(1)JCR282(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This writ petition is before us as referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court who felt that some of the decisions rendered by other learned single Judges on the question of compassionate appointments require to be reconsidered in the light of some of the binding decisions of the Supreme Court. In fact, an elaborate order of reference was passed by the same learned Judge in WP (S) No. 6023 of 2002, but we did not answer the question therein because, that case could be disposed of on facts and there was no need to resolve the controversy. But the fact remains that the learned single Judge felt while making the reference to the Division Bench that the decision rendered or the direction issued by two other learned Judges of this Court could not be followed in the light of the legal position emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court. We have heard counsel in detail at the hearing.2. The father of the writ petitioner died on 27....
Shivratri Devi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR168(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to make necessary correction in the cause title of the interlocutory application.2. In the instant interlocutory application the appellants have prayed for leave to make themselves appellant and to allow them to proceed with this appeal as the legal representative of deceased Jagdish Chowdhury who was the defendant-respondent before the lower appellate Court and died after conclusion of the hearing of the appeal and before passing the judgment and decree therein and as such the names of legal representatives could not be substituted in the lower appellate Court but have been entered as appellants in the memo of appeal. In support of same the appellants have sworn an affidavit. Defect has been pointed out by the stamp reporter regarding substitution of the names of the legal representative in place of Jagdish Chowdhury in the cause title of memo of appeal though their names do not appear in the decree of the lowe...
Lalit Chandra Raisurana Vs. Arun Raisurana
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar39; [2004(4)JCR329(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubkamanyan, C.J. 1. Heard both sides.2. The defendant failed to file a written statement within 90 days of entering appearance in the suit. On. 4.11,2003. he was given time to file his written statement. He did not file the written statement. The plaintiff thereupon filed an application praying that the defendant be debarred from filing a written statement, since the defendant had not filed a written statement within the time prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even within the time allowed by the Proviso to that Rule. The defendant filed an objection to this petition by submitting that he had filed a written statement on the previous day and that the written statement may be accepted, since he had filed the written statement on the date to which the case was adjourned by the Court on 14.1.2004. The Court below rightly noticed that the mere adjournment of the suit to another day, did not mean an extension or fixation of time for filing the w...
K.E.C. International Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Government of Jharkhand Thr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR702(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to open it's price bid submitted pursuant to the notice inviting Lender (NIT for short) issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi being NIT No. I45/PR/ JSEB/2003 (Annexurc-2) in all the three packages being Packages A, B and C.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the concerned respondents have not opened it's price without assigning any reason and without responding to any of the letters dated 8.12.2003 (Annexure-6/1). letter dated 30.1.2004 (Annexure-9) and legal notice dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure-10); although, the petitioner satisfies all the technical and commercial requirements of the NIT. It is submitted that the said action is arbitrary and mala fide and is motivated in order to favour the other bidders.4. The main dispute is whether petitioner fulfilled the qualifying criteria No. 7 of the NIT which reads as follows :-'7.0 The bidder should possess latest 132 KV-3 phase double ...
Ram Khelawan Singh Vs. Patratu thermal Power Station and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR78a(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner prays for a direction for payment of his retiral dues in revised scale of pay.3. Against the leave encashment on revised scale, a cheque has already been handed over by the respondents to Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.7.2004.4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of information sent to his client, petitioner has not contacted him to receive the said cheque and for giving instructions.5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner is getting pension in revised scale. Commutation of pension of other employees including the petitioner is in process. Arrears of salary on 5th Pay Revision Commission is being paid to the petitioner. First instalment of the same has been paid.6. Learned counsel for the respondents today produced another Account Payee Cheque No. 8673 dated 23.7.2004 drawn on State Bank of India, Patratu amounting to Rs. 2,40,02...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »