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.
Ramji Mahto @ Kodo Khirhar Vs. Murlidhar Yadav and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR226(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This second appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 passed in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1985/1 of 1986, whereby and where-under the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Dumka set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1984 passed in Title Suit No. 11/82.2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 3 Promod Kumar Yadav was never adopted by the plaintiff No. 1 and he is not the adopted son of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 had landed property at Mauja Gajipur and Mauja Balidhab, P.S. Sraiyahat in the district of Santhal Pargana and she has also inherited the property at Mauja Gajipur from her father together with her sister, who died leaving behind only son Methal Mahto and this plaintiff has also inherited the landed property at Mauja Balidhab from her husband (since deceased). The plaintiff had three daughters, namely K...
Arjun Mahto and anr. Vs. Satyabala Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR499(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. This is the plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit seeking a declaration that the lands described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint belongs to the plaintiffs and that defendants 1 to 4 have no right, title and interest over the same and that the preliminary decree dated 29.1.1951 passed in Partition Suit No. 17 of 1949 which was affirmed upto the High Court and the final decree followed thereafter are all vitiated by fraud not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 11 and the same are liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs had also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction and appointment of receiver and for confirmation of possession over Schedule 'A' properties. The plaintiffs' case is that the land appertaining to Khata Nos. 23, 1/23 and 1/78 which were described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint were acquired by Chintu Mahto by virtue of a Hukumanama.Chintu had acquired the said lan...
Gauri Shanker Tiwary Vs. Chairman, Steel Authority of India Ltd. and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR122(Jhr)]
S.K. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay him the post retirement benefits, such as, provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment as also other benefits, including the arrears of salary on grant of promotion.2. According to the petitioner, he was in the services of Steel Authority of India Limited ('SAIL' for short), posted at Bokaro Steel Plant. He, not having been granted promotion to the next higher post, had moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2239 of 1995R. The matter, thereafter, moved up to the appellate stage and certain directions were issued in L.P.A. No. 681 of 2003 on 15th December, 2003.3. Grievance of the petitioner is that though, thereafter, the Supreme Court has not interfered with the order, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, he has not been given the benefits, in terms with the order, passed by the Division Bench, nor has been paid the retiral benefits, he having already...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Defence Estate Officer Vs. Seneth Munda @ ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar107; 2005(1)BLJR729; [2005(2)JCR7(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for stay of the operation of the award dated 21.6.2003 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.P.N. Sahdeo (retired) in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2002.2. According to the appellant, this appeal arises out of the award rendered in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2002, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,32,61,908.30 has been awarded by way of compensation to the claimants-respondents, although the due compensation amount was already determined and the land owners had accepted the amount of compensation without any demur by way of full and final settlement as far back as in the year 1989. According to the appellant, the respondents are, thus, not at all entitled either in law or in equity or under the provisions of Rule 9 of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Rules, 1953 to make any further claim. It has been stated that the award is apparently illegal and unsusta...
Karmachari Kumardhubi Congres Union Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar74; III(2005)BC315; [2005(2)JCR195(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner, namely, Karmachari Kumardhubi Congress Union representing the workmen of Kumardhubi Metal Casting Engineering Ltd., has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.1.2004 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in R.P. No. 33/2002 whereby one officer of the Bank has been appointed as Receiver to execute the warrant of attachment and as a custodian of moveable properties and also for quashing the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Recovery Officer directing action sale of the moveable assets of the Company.2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that a company petition for winding up of respondent No. 4 M/s. Kumardhubi Metal Casting Ltd. (In short the Company) being Company Petition No. 2/96 was filed and in terms of order dated 17.8.1999 official liquidator was appointed for taking possession of all the assets of the Company. Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being WP ...
State of Bihar Vs. Nirmal Kumar Agrawal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1087; [2005(2)JCR579(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal by the State-appellant is against the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in LA Case No. 33 of 1972 whereby learned Court below has assessed the value of the acquired land of an area of 14.65 acres at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre with the then statutory solatium and interest, modifying the award of the Collector accordingly.2. The respondents lands of Village Harila, P.S. Chas, District Dhanbad were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Bokaro Steel City. After acquisition of the lands, the Collector assessed the value and made an award of Rs. 3,213.35 for the said 14.65 acres of land of the respondents. On objection against the said valuation, by the respondents the case was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the LA Act). The respondent claimed the value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre. The parties, thereafter,...
Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Sasanka Sekhar Sen and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR11(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents.2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.3. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following two substantial questions of law were framed :(i) Whether supply of a copy of the departmental enquiry report was necessary while passing an order of dismissal?(ii) Whether the petitioner has a mandatory right to be defended by a counsel of his choice in the departmental proceeding?4. This appeal arose out of the suit which was instituted by the respondents against the appellant. The respondents-plaintiffs sought a decree declaring that the purported enquiry against him is illegal, malacious and without jurisdiction and that no action can be taken on the basis of the said enquiry. The plaintiff- respondent had also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking any action against him on the basis of the said enquiry and on the basis of the charge sheet dated 12.7.1997 served on him....
Uma Pada Choudhary and anr. Vs. Panchanand Choudhary and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar82
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. While admitting this appeal, this Court had framed the following substantial questions of law:(i) whether in the facts and circumstance of the case the State of Bihar was a necessary party in view of the facts that the State did not itself claim any right, title and interest in the suit property ?(ii) Whether, in any event, the plaintiff's relief relating to the declaration of title and confirmation of possession would have been considered even in absence of order of the Circle Officer?2. Notice was issued to the respondents, but in spite of service of notice, nobody appeared and therefore this appeal has been taken up for hearing in absence of the respondents.3. The Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs appellants' suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and no relief can be granted in absence of the said party.4. The appellants were the plaintiffs. They filed Title Suit No. 55/80 in the Trial Court praying relief for declaration of title...
Dr. Smt. Usha Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR86(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on the respondents to pay her salary for the period from September, 1997 to 13th November, 2000 and subsistence allowance for the period from 15th November, 2000 to March, 2003.2. According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed on 11th October, 1983 in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih. Thereafter, she was transferred to the Referal Hospital, Bermo (Bokaro) where she worked from September, 1997 to 13th November, 2000, but the salary for the said period was not paid to her, the fund having not been allowed. It is stated that she was placed under suspension on 15th November, 2000 but, thereafter, she was also not paid subsistence allowance for the period upto March, 2003.3. From the pleadings made by the petitioner, it is not clear as to whether she is getting subsistence allowance since April, 2003 or not nor it is clear whether any departmental pr...
Bikas Mahli Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR90(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment.2. According to the petitioner, his father late Mangal Ram was in the services of the State and died in harness on 12th July, 1995. The mother of the petitioner, thereafter, applied for compassionate appointment but it was not accepted by the respondents by letter dated 4th September, 1996 on the ground of overage. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner sought for appointment of the petitioner when the respondents informed by letter dated 11th July, 2001 that they have agreed to provide employment to the petitioner.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was completed all the formalities and submitted his application but no final decision has been taken by the respondents.4. Counsel for the State submits that the matter will be looked into and appropriate order may be passed, if so required.5. In the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »