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.
Chintamoni @ Shitali Sonamoni Kisku Vs. Lakhi Ram Kisku
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR555; [2005(1)JCR422(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.11.2003 and 13.12.2004 passed in Title Suit No. 113/2003 by the Munsif-II, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner, who is the defendant in the Court below, has been debarred from filing the written statement on the ground that the same was filed after lapse of the prescribed period provided under Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC.2. The petitioner's case is that on receiving summons of the suit served on him, he appeared through an advocate on 31.7.2003 and prayed for time to file written statement. The petitioner could not be ready with his written statement and as such he took time earlier and also prayed for time by his application dated 5.11.2003. The said application for time was rejected and by order dated 5.11.2003 the learned Munsif debarred the defendant from filing the written statement in view of the provision under Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC. According to the petitioner, between the date of his ...
Jamuna Prasad Vs. J.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR130(Jhr)]
ORDERMaintainability of the appeal1.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18th Sep-tember, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by him was dismissed. Against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 762 of 2001. In the said appeal, neither the Bihar State Electricity Board nor its concerned officers having been impleaded as party respondents, Bench of this Court vide order dated 9th January, 2003 dismissed the appeal being not maintainable.2. The appellant, thereafter, preferred the present appeal against the said order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18th September, 2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 2000. In the present case, Bihar State Electricity Board (B.S.E.B. for short), Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B. for short) and its Officers have been impleaded as party-respondents but the office of this Court has raised the question of main...
Mohan Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar Through Commissione ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR365(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners are permitted to add the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand as party respondent No. 6 within the course of the day.2. Mr. Saurav Arun submits that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner Nos. 6, 14 to 24, 26 to 29.3. Mr. M.J. Rahman submits that he has appeared on behalf of petitioner No. 5.4. Mr. Shri Prakash Jha submits that he has appeared on behalf of petitioner No. 25.5. No body appeared on behalf of other petitioners, though the case was transferred from Patna, on the basis of submission made on behalf of petitioners, on 20.11.2001.6. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, for the State of Bihar and for State of Jharkhand.7. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the Memo No. 32 dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Director, Primary Education, H.R.D. Department, Bihar, Patna (Annexure 7) and for commanding the respondentauthorities to include their names in the panel and to exclu...
Management of Dvc Through Its Chairman Vs. Workmen Represented by Dvc ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR414; [2005(1)JCR363(Jhr)]; (2005)IIILLJ537Jhar
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 30th September, 2003, passed in CWJC No. 3119 of 1996(R), whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge while dismissed the writ petition, as was preferred by the. appellant, observed that the findings, arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, being based on appreciation of evidence and there being nothing on record to suggest that any part of the findings is beyond the record, cannot be interfered with and thereby the High Court can not substitute its findings, on the question of fact, arrived at by the learned Tribunal, under its writ jurisdiction.2. Brief facts of the case are that at the instance of the workmen, following reference was made by the competent Government vide Notification No. 3/D1-18038/92 L&E-778; dated 15th July, 1992 :'Whether the following temporary workmen of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station engaged on daily wages should be regularized? If not, what relief they ...
Swapan Adhikari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR508(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 12th March, 2004 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Bench at Ranchi in original application No. 351/2003, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the application.2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Directors of Mines and Safety under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and was posted at Dhanbad. Thereafter, he was transferred from Dhanbad to Hyderabad. Subsequently, he was promoted to the next higher post of Directors of Mines and Safety on ad hoc basis and was posted at Dhanbad. In the meantime, an FIR was lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation against him at Bhuvaneshwar in which charge sheet was submitted on 20th November, 1994. The trial of the criminal proceeding started and more than thirty-six witnesses were examined. When the question of regular promotion was taken up, the Departmental Promotion Com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›