Jharkhand Court January 2005 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.
In Re: H.W. Builders Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR416; [2005(1)JCR499(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. UPON the above petition of H.W. Builders limited, the petitioner-company, above named, presented this Court on 16th February, 2004 for confirmation of reduction of paid-up capital of H.W. Builders Ltd. in terms of special resolution, passed in an Extra-ordinary General Meeting of the Company, held on Thursday, 27th day of March, 2003 at the registered office of the Company at Sneh Mian, Telephone Exchange Road, Dhan-bad-826001 (Jharkhand) AND UPON GOING THROUGH THE PETITION AND ON HEARING, on 24th June, 2004 it was ordered to publish the notice in two leading National Newspapers; one in English and another in Hindi, informing the concerned persons as to why appropriate order be not passed. Notice of hearing of the petition was published in the Newspapers 'HINDUSTAN TIMES' (English) and 'HINDUSTAN' (Hindi), both Ranchi Edition, on 27th July, 2004, AND UPON READING the affidavit, filed by the petitioner-company along with the certified copy of the resolut...
Nand Kishore Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR404(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 20th November, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 818 of 2000 (R), whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, on the ground that the appellant had already accepted the order of re-appointment without even a demur and thereby the Court refused to interfere with the impugned award.2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant was appointed on 28th May, 1979 as Fitter at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. He remained absent from duty without prior permission for more than fifteen days. The Management of Bokaro Steel Plant while held that he had abandoned the service, removed his name from the roll of the Company w.e.f. Ist October, 1980, by an order dated 15th/16th, December, 1980, under Clause 20 (XI) of the Standing Orders without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therea...
Most. Kaushalya Devi Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR498(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By the Court.-The petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication as contained in letter dated 30.6.2004 issued under the signature of Senior Personnel, Officer, Religara Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited informing the petitioner that her application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.2. The petitioner's case is that her husband Sama Kumar was a permanent employee working in Religara Colliery and he was married with the petitioner on 18.5.2001 and about five months thereafter he died in-harness. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and submitted all the papers including an affidavit sworn by her mother-in-law that the petitioner is the legally married wife. The name of the petitioner was forwarded by the Religara Colliery to the competent authority for taking a decision. The competent authority sitting in the headquarter took a decision that since the name of the petitioner was not entered in the service book so she is not enti...
Fatik Chandra Dutta Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR298; [2005(105)FLR200]; [2005(1)JCR411(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the notice dated 3rd/4th May 2004, passed by 4th, respondent, whereby and where under, he has been informed that he will be completing 42 years of service and thereby he would retire on 31st October, 2004.2. According to the petitioner, he can not be subjected to retire prematurely, prior to attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years of age. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the minimum age of 18 years, prescribed for appointment in the services of the respondents, the petitioner can not continue beyond 42 years of service.3. Brief facts of the case, as admitted by the parties, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 20th October, 1962 as Cap Lamp In charge in one East Basuria Colliery, a private Colliery. After appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 1st November, 1945 in his service records, including other relevant records, which has not yet been chang...
Pratap Constructions, Through Its Proprietor Vs. State of Jharkhand an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR492; 2005(2)CTLJ214(Jhar); [2005(2)JCR15(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9.11.2004, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2961/2004 whereby the said writ application filed by him was disposed of without accepting the appellant's prayer for quashing the letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004, issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2). The appellant had filed the said writ application, inter alia, praying for quashing the aforesaid letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004, issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appellant's contract for transportation of food grains was terminated as a corollary and consequence of cancelling the letter No. 506 dated 31.3.2004 by which the contract for transportation of food grains under District Rural Employment Programme for the financial year 2004-05 had been awarded.2. According to the appellant, he was awarded the contract for transportation of food grains for district rural employment agency, to transport to each block on certain terms and conditions incorpor...
Mulla Ansari Vs. Sk. Sattar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR55(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this application the petitioner- plaintiff has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.7.2004 passed by learned Munsif, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 28 of 2001, whereby the Court below has refused to allow the petitioner to bring in evidence the sketch map prepared by Amin for specific identification of the encroached area of the suit land.2. Notice was issued in this case. Respondent No. 1 his appeared, but no counter affidavit has been filed. At the time of hearing also, no body appeared on behalf of the respondents to object the petition.3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the sketch map, which was prepared by Panchu Ram, Amin, was sought to be brought as an evidence for proper identification of the encroached area of the suit land. The said prayer was made in course of examination Of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is still at the evidence stage.4. ...
Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Government of India Through Central Vigilanc ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR487(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5996 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by the appellant with prayer to quash the departmental proceeding, has been dismissed.2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant while posted as Technical Secretary to the Director (Technical) at Singrauli, he was served with a show cause notice bearing No. NCL/Vig/INV/8-03/830 dated 24th November, 2003 whereby he was asked to show cause to the alleged irregularities as were set out in the said show cause notice. The appellant having received the show cause, replied to each and every irregularities and illegalities as were pointed out in different sub-clauses of clause (iv) of the show cause notice. One of the pleas taken was that he had no role to play in the matter of 'a tender', which gave rise to the irregularities as were allege...
Bishwanath Agarwala Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar69; III(2005)BC217; [2005(2)JCR232(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals bearing Nos. 237 of 1995 and 271 of 1995 filed on behalf of the appellants namely Bishwanath Agarwala and Sate Bank of India respectively, have arisen out of the same judgment dated 29th July 1995 and decree dated 4th August 1995 passed in M.S. No. 43 of 1989.2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that defendant No. 1 Joydeb Panja was running business of wholesale medicine and he approached the plaintiff-bank for cash credit facility for running his business up to the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the plaintiff-bank sanctioned the loan on 7.3.1986 on usual documentation and on acceptance of terms and condition by the defendant No. 1. The aforesaid loan was sanctioned on acceptance of terms and condition No. 1 to the effect that loan amount with agreed interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly rest would be paid on demand and on creating security by the defendant No. 1 and, defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and a...
Rabindra Nath Mahato @ Rabindra Mahato and ors. Vs. Manoranjan Mahato
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR475(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2004 whereby the petitioners' petition for amendment in the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected. According to the plaintiffs-petitioners, the Court below failed to properly consider the facts and circumstances and also that the plaintiffs are the persons coming from the rural areas having no knowledge of law, could not earlier file the application for amendment. According to them they shall suffer irreparable loss and Injury and that there will be multiplicity of legal proceedings, if the controversies between the parties are not completely decided. It was urged that the Court below has erroneously rejected the petition without assigning any cogent reason. According to the petitioners, though the petition for amendment has not been happily drafted, the reason for not filing the amendment petition earlier has been mentioned in the petition which co...
Rabindra Nath Mahto @ Rabindra Mahato and ors. Vs. Manoranjan Mahato
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR171
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2004 whereby the petitioners petition for amendment in the plaint filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected. According to the plaintiffs-petitioners, the Court below failed to properly consider the facts and circumstances and also that the plaintiffs are the persons coming from the rural areas having no knowledge of law, could not earlier file the application for amendment. According to them they shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and that there will be multiplicity of legal proceedings, if the controversies between the parties are not completely decided. It was urged that the Court below has erroneously rejected the petition without assigning any cogent reason. According to the petitioners, though the petition for amendment has not been happily drafted, the reason for not filing the amendment petition earlier has been mentioned in the petition which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »