Jharkhand Court February 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.
Daya Shankar Rai Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR382(Jhar); 2005(1)BLJR526; [2005(2)JCR163(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an independent sole Arbitrator for deciding the disputes raised by the petitioner with regard to his claim made to the respondents.2. Petitioner was allotted a contract work by the respondents for the work of strengthening and widening of Roads from Khalari to Kalyanpur. Petitioner said to have completed the entire work. It is alleged that payment of Price-Escalation on labour, P.O.L. was agreed upon vide Clauses 15 and 16 of the General Terms and Conditions. Petitioner's case is that respondents made part payment and inspite of repeated request the total claim of the petitioner has not been released. Petitioner, thereafter, raised disputes and called upon the respondents to appoint arbitrator for the Adjudication of the disputes.3. The case of the respondent/ Central Coalfields Ltd. on the other hand is that petitioner has been paid...
Doman Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR785; 2005(2)CTLJ222(Jhar); [2005(2)JCR272(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Doman Mandal, against the judgment dated 7th October, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6208 of 2003, whereby and where under, the decision of a departmental committee dated 1st December, 2003 recommending allotment of tender in favour of appellant/5th respondent and the order of allotment of tender work dated 4th December, 2003, issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Development (Special Range), Jharkhand, Ranchi, were cancelled and the writ petition was allowed in favour of writ petitioner 6th respondent herein, namely, Shailesh Kumar Ganesh.2. The present case relates to allotment of work in pursuance of a Notice Inviting Tender No. 01/2002-03 (N.I.T. for short) for awarding contract of 46 (forty six) different kinds of construction works, which were to be made in the district of Jamtara.Initially, Tender was called for from Registered Contractors, but later on, by Corrigendum, Clause (9) ...
M.S. Hoda Vs. Dipti Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar13; [2005(2)JCR354(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is against the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the learned Sub- Judge VII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 241 of 2001 whereby the learned Court below has permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the Title Suit No. 241/2001. The petitioner was the Defendant No. 1 and he had appeared and contested the suit claiming his own independent right and title in the suit land. In his written statement he had, inter alia, taken the ground that the suit cannot proceed further in view of the pendency of previous instituted Title Suit No. 35 of 1990 in the Court of Munsif, Ranchi with respect to the same property. The petitioner had also contested the title of the plaintiff.2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Plaintiff/Opposite Party had filed the suit praying relief, inter alia, for declaration of her right and title in the suit property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff pos...
Durga Devi Chhowchharia and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR359a(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'Code') has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the First Information Report in connection with Hatia P.S. Case No. 56 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No. 920 of 1999 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Facts leading to filing of this case are that O.P. No. 2 who is Enforcement Officer. Employees Provident Fund Organization, lodged an FIR stating inter alia therein that the petitioners are the employers of M/s Oriental Electro Steels and this organization is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and the employers have failed to pay the employers and employees contribution of provident fund for the period from April 1996 to February 1999. On that basis, a case being Hatia P.S. Case No. 56 of 1999 was registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The learned cou...
Upendra Nath Mahto Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its C ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR137(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. According to the petitioner, he was in the services of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'JSEB') and retired on 31st May, 2004, while posted as Technician Grade I, Transmission Circle, Gamharia, Jamshwedpur. According to him, though he is entitled for the following benefits, the respondents have not yet paid the same :(a) G.P.F.;(b) Pension;(c) Leave Encashment;(d) Gratuity;(e) Arears of Super Selection Grade;(f) 2% D.A. made applicable from January, 2004 and not paid to the petitioner;(g) D.A. 50% merged into the Basic Scale not paid to the petitioner;(h) T.A. payment for the month of August, September and October, 2003;(i) Statutory interest and penal interest on the aforesaid dues; and(j) Other dues.2. It appears that the petitioner has already represented the matter before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone No. 1, JSEB, Ranch! vide representation dated 24th December, 2004 and the matter seems...
Pundeo Singh Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR405a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This case relates to appointment of the ward/son of the petitioner, in terms with Memorandum of Settlement dated 14th May, 1987. For such benefit, the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in CWJC No. 4393 of 2000, which was disposed of on 4th January, 2001 with certain direction to the respondents. The appeal being LPA No. 417 of 2001, preferred by M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, was also dismissed vide judgment dated 12th December, 2002. The respondents, thereafter, considered the case of the petitioner's son Jitendra Kumar Singh for appointment and passed the impugned order dated 7th February, 2004, relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder :'Sub :-Application for appointment of your son Jitendra Kumar Singh in pursuance of order dated 12.12.2002 passed in LPA No. 417 of 2001.Dear Sir,Reference is invited to your application dated 29.10.2003 wherein you have requested to consider your case again.The case of appointment of yo...
Nandeo Singh and anr. Vs. Moga Kuar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR372(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard.2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.9.2004 passed by Additional Munsif, Palamau, Daltonganj in Partition. Suit No. 42 of 1997 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the defendants-petitioners for calling for the records of Permission Case No. 46 of 1990-91.3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that prayer of the petitioners for calling for the records of aforesaid case was rejected on the ground, inter alia, that said prayer was made after the closure of the evidence and that the same cannot be allowed at the belated stage.4. The actual dispute appears to be between the parties with regard to the execution of deed of gift. Admittedly, after the closure of the evidence and at the stage of argument the plaintiff-respondents sought to adduce some documentary evidence relating to permission granted in Permission Case No. 46 of 1990-91. The said prayer was allowed by the Court below...
Smt. Sanju Anubha Khalkho, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR285(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners claim that they are the bonafide teaching and non-teaching employees of the Recognized Aided Minority High Schools.2. The petitioner of WP(S) No. 794/05 claims to be working as a teacher in St. Paul's High School, Ranchi. According to her, she has not been paid the salary for the period July, 1999 to February, 2003 as the State Government has not released fund in favour of the school.3. The petitioners of WP (S) No. 807/ 2005 claim to be working against teaching and non-teaching posts of the same school i.e. St. Paul's High School, Ranchi. They claim that they have not been paid the salary for the period from March, 1992 to February, 1997 and December, 1997 to February, 2001 though the bill has already been submitted by the Principal before the District Education Officer, Ranchi. So far as petitioners of WP (S) No. 816/2005 are concerned, they claim to be working as teaching/ non-teaching employees of St. Margaret's G...
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shiva Kant Jha @ ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR534
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1704 of 2000 (R) whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order as contained in letter dated 3.4.2000 whereby the petitioner-respondent was informed that his request for voluntary retirement from the service has not been accepted by the Company.2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. Petitioner-respondent was in the services of the appellant Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and appointed as a Junior Assistant. He was promoted from time to time and in 1996 he was holding the post of Manager (Public Relations). Appellant-Company introduced a voluntary Retirement Scheme for the purpose of reducing the manpower and thereby making the Company economically viable. According to the petitioner-respondent, he opted for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and, therefore, he filed an application to that effect on the printed...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Deputy Co ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR660; [2005(2)JCR220(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since the points involved in all the Letters Patent Appeals are common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. These Letters Patent Appeals, at the instance of the appellant-Steel Authority of India Limited, are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2001 whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge has allowed all the Miscellaneous Appeals being MA No. 116 to 134 of 2000 (R) filed by the State of Bihar, now Jharkhand, and remanded the matter to the Executing Court for fresh decision.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The erstwhile State of Bihar issued notifications in the years 1956 and 1964 for acquisition of land at villages Sangjori, Marafari, Pipar Tanr and other villages for construction of Iron and Steel Plant at Bokaro. After issuing subsequent notification under Sections 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), awards were prepared. The awardees filed applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »