Jharkhand Court November 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.
Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ117; [2006(1)JCR261a(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The question involved in this case is as to whether certain type of machineries exclusively used within the enclosed premises of mine and which are not adapted for use upon roads are motor vehicles under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Motor Vehicles Act') so as to attract the payment of road tax and additional tax under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Taxation Act').3. Petitioner's case is that it is a Government Company and for the purpose of its mining activities, it uses certain machineries, such as Shovels, Trax-cavators, Cranes, Rappridozer, Excavators etc. which are not adapted for use upon roads. Petitioner's further case is that the said machines were/are not plied on road and they ply exclusively within the enclosed premises of the mines.4. Mr. A.K. Mehta submitted that the respondents have not denied that the said ...
Jai Prakash Sao Vs. Smt. Ajua Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR299(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the Munsif-1st Dhanbad, in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2005, whereby he has recalled the ex parte hearing order dated 5.1.2005 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 32 of 1982.2. From the aforesaid order it appears that the suit was only fixed for ex parte hearing for the first time on 5.1.2005. Neither the Court has proceeded ex parte hearing nor any ex parte decree has been passed as yet. The learned Munsif found that the summon or notice was not served upon the concerned defendant. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This writ application is, accordingly dismissed.3. However, this Court takes the matter very serious for the reasons that Title (Eviction) Suit of the year 1982 is still pending, although 23 years have already passed. The Court below is, therefore, directed to dispose of the eviction suit by p...
Ugra NaraIn Jaiswal Vs. Uttama Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR328(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner confines this writ application only against the order dated 22.8.2005, passed by the 1st Sub-ordinate Judge, Godda, in Title Suit No. 37 of 1985, whereby he has allowed the amendment in the written statement sought for by the defendant Nos. 2 to 12.3. After considering the nature of the amendments sought for by the defendants, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This writ application is, accordingly dismissed.4. However, when the amendment of the pleadings as has been, allowed, the Court below ought to have given liberty to the petitioner to controvert the amended pleadings. In the circumstance without interfering with the impugned order, the petitioner shall have the liberty to file an affidavit in rebuttal of the amended pleadings....
Mazharul Haque and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR85(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. In all these writ petitions almost common prayer having been made, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have challenged the notice, published in the daily newspapers i.e. 'Ranchi Express' & other newspapers on 31st December, 2004/December, 2004, inviting applications for engagement of Medical/ Para-Medical personnel on contract basis. The said notice has been published, giving reference to an order dated 22nd December, 2004, passed by this Court in Cont. Case (C) No. 910 of 2004.3. Grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been engaged on contract basis for two years as Medical/Para-Medical personnel, such as, Doctor, Technical Assistant, Pharmacist, Nurse Grade 'A' etc., in pursuance of Press Communique dated 30th October, 2003, published in the daily newspaper on 9th November, 2003, and are to continue till completion of two years' contract period, the respondents have issued a ...
Saranan Chattopadhyaya Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ921; I(2006)DMC663; [2006(1)JCR101(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1 .In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.4.1998 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petition under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner for his discharge.2. The facts in short are that a complaint petition was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, against the petitioner and one Budha Dev Banerjee for commission of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 268 of 1995.3. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that the complainant-opposite party No. 2, had a marriageable daughter, namely, Meena Chakraborty and he was in search of matching groom for his daughter. A common relative, namely, Budhdev Banerjee (the other co-accused) assured the complainant that the marriage between her daughter and Asish Chattopadhya, son of petitioner can be settled provided some ...
Pradeep Robert Lakra and ors. and Pushpa Purty and ors. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BLJR99; [2006(1)JCR110(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, ACJ1. In both the eases, as common questions of law are involved and similar orders are under challenge, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The petitioners are Scheduled Tribe (ST for short) employees of the combined State of Bihar. According to them, their residents now fall within the territory of successesor State of Jharkhand. Their grievance is against the allocation of State, as made by the Central Government in pursuance of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the Reorganisation Act, 2000).2. For determination of the questions, as raised in both the cases, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts and law, except the relevant one, as stated hereunder.In pursuance of Reorganisation Act, 2000, the then State of Bihar was re-organized in two successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand which came into effect since 15th November, 2000. The Central Government has been empowered to allocate one or oilier ...
Bimal Kumar Jha and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BLJR109; [2006(1)JCR72(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. In all the cases, as common order is under challenge and common questions of law involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have challenged the Order No. 6 (BJ/2004, dated 29th July, 2004 issued by the Director (SR), Ministry of Personnel, Public Complaint and Pension, Government of India, New Delhi, whereby and whereunder, in exercise of power conferred under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the services of petitioners and some others have been placed under the successor State of Bihar.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they opted for placement of their services under the successor State of Jharkhand, but in violation of the guidelines issued by the Central Government, their services have been placed and allocated under the successor State of Bihar.4. It may be mentioned that the then State of Bihar was organized in pursuance of the Bihar Reorgaisation Act, 200...
Priya Barata NaraIn Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR69(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the Order No. 9 (Bj/2004, dated 2nd September, 2004 issued by the Director (CRS), Department of Pension Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi, so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder, his services have been allocated to the successor State of Bihar.2. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that his wife Smt. Meena Singh is an Assistant Teacher in Indian School of Learning, Saraidhela, Dhanbad and she cannot be transferred or posted to any school within the successor State of Bihar. According to the learned Counsel, the services of petitioner, on the other hand, can be placed in the successor State of Jharkhand as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government.3. Though such pleading has been made his Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot determine as to whether the services of petitioner, in the facts and in th...
Dr. (Miss) P.N. Vijyam Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR235(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction for payment of non- practicing allowance from the date of submission of declaration as she has stopped her practice from the said date. 3. In the facts of the case, I direct the petitioner to approach the Commissioner, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand, Ranchi. If such representation is filed, the Commissioner, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand, Ranchi shall consider the representation and take a decision by passing a reasoned order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 4. Needless to say that if the amount is found payable by the respondents, the same shall be paid within four weeks thereafter....
Swarnrekha Coal and Coke Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR348(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondents on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners for modification of the order dated 13.9.2005 in the light of the interim order passed by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 20471/2005 in which the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by this Court in these writ petitions, has been challenged.2. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the scheme framed by the respondent-BCCL for sale of coal to non-core sector/consumers through a system known as 'E-Auction.' On 8.4.2005 this Court passed the following order :Petitioners have prayed for quashing the scheme framed by the respondents for sale of coal to non-core sector [consumer] through the system known as E-Auction. Petitioners are small scale Industries and were granted coal linkage after making complete ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »