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.
Fuljence Lakra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR85(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on the respondents to pay him the death-cum-retiral benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Revenue Clerk on 30th August, 1997 at Ghaghra Block and retired from the services of the State on 30th April, 2004 from Bharno Block in pursuance of order dated 30th April, 2004 issued by the Circle Officer, Bharno Block.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not paid the retiral benefits in spite of repeated representation preferred by him.4. In the facts and circumstances, as I find that the matter requires determination firstly by the respondents, instead of asking the respondents to file counter affidavit, the case is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to enquire into the matter and decide the claim. If it is found that the petitioner is a State Government employee, the respondents will pay him the admitted retiral benefits, such as pen...
their Workman Sri Ram Surat Ram Represented by Bokaro Karamchari Panch ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR88(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the workman against the award dated 10th June, 2004, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 36 of 2000, whereby and where under the reference has been answered against the workman and it has been held that the workman, Ram Surat Ram, is not entitled to any relief.2. The workman, in fact, claimed promotion, which was not granted. At his instance, Bokaro Karamchari Panchayat took up the matter and raised dispute. The Government of Bihar vide its Notification No. 7/Shram-D-360/20/99 L and E-453 dated 1.7.2000 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act made the following reference:'Whether the demotion of Sri Ram Surat Ram Staff No. 139396 of Bokaro Steel Plant in the case of regular promotion by the management is justified? If not, then what relief is entitled to Sri Ram?'3. The main plea taken by the workman was that the Management Company, having framed its Ru...
Hira Lal Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR259(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 2, contained in order No. 92 of 2001 communicated to the petitioner, vide Memo No. 533/Estt, dated 14.9.2001 (Annexure 10) whereby and whereunder respondent No. 2 has been pleased to dismiss the petitioner along with two others.3. The petitioner was posted as Halka Karamchari and on transfer from Palajori Anchal to Sarath Anchal in the sub-division of Deoghar he was to take charge of Halka No. 11-B from the out going Halka Karamchari Sri Achhay Kumar Thakur which also included Mouza Kunda. One of the day of a Halka/Revenue Karamchari is collection of the rent in respect of demand standing in Register II maintained in the office of the Circle Officer and under Section 43-A(2) of the Santhal...
Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC188; [2005(2)JCR6(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to consider his case for grant of higher grade in terms with Assured Career Progression Scheme as was allowed by the State Government vide Order No. 351 dated 16th December, 2004.2. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Personal Assistant on 6th October, 1976 but has not been granted any regular promotion to the higher post/grade. Thus, he is entitled for first higher grade on completion of 12 years and second next higher grade on completion of 24 years of service under Assured Career Progression Scheme.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service career of the petitioner is unblemished and for that correspondences were also made and representations given by the petitioner from time to time as contained in Annexure-9.4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, as the matter requires determination firstly by the respondents, instead of asking the responden...
Etwari Devi and ors. Vs. Lakhan Lal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR130(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant(s) against the judgment and decree of affirmance. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 6.6.1986. At the time of the said purchase there were tenants in different portions of the suit premises. The defendants were in occupation of a portion of the suit building. The said defendants had attorned to the plaintiffs after coming to know about their said purchase. According to the plaintiffs, in spite of the same, the defendants defaulted in payment of rent and thereby rendered themselves liable for eviction. The plaintiffs contended that they also require the premises bona fide and in good faith for their own used and occupation.2. The defendants contested the plaintiffs claim and denied the relationship...
State of Jharkhand Through Executive Eng. Minor Distribution Division ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR91(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. This civil revision application is against the order dated 29.5.2004 passed by Sub-Judge 1st at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2004, whereby the learned Court below has rejected the miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to be as the said Act).2. According to the petitioner, regarding excavation of residual work of Chandil Left Bank Main Canal, there were two agreements between the petitioner and M/s. Himachal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. In the terms of the agreement there was provisions for settlement of dispute by referring the same to the Executive Engineer and thereafter to file appeal before the Superintending Engineer and on their failure or in case of any grievance against the order for reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. The grievance of the petitioner is that without exhausting the said provision of referring the dispute for settlement depar...
Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. Jharkhand State Housing Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR547(Jhar); 2005(1)BLJR562; [2005(2)JCR1(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the question of maintainability of this application.2. The instant application has been filed purported to be under Section 34, read with Section 42(2)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'said Act') for setting aside the award dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi in compliance of the order passed by this Court in a writ petition.3. Petitioner's case is that he was allotted a Middle Income Group (MIG) house with a piece of land by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna in the year 1983 at a price of Rs. 82,000/-. He deposited the initial money and entered into a registered agreement with the Housing Board in 1986 and, thereafter, regularly paid installments as per the agreement. It is stated that in-spite of payment of Rs. 1,40,015.00 the Housing Board raised further demand of Rs. 84,931.00. The petition...
Satguru Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Castrol India Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC278; [2005(2)JCR9(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.8.2004 passed in Money Suit No. 36/2002 passed by Sub-Judg-II, Dhanbad whereby the Court below has allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act or Arbitration Act).2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Money Suit No. 36/2002. He has filed the said suit praying relief for recovery of Rs. 2,98,692/-. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a distributor for the product of the defendant by an agreement which was valid up to 27.2.1999. The plaintiff as required, furnished Bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was renewed from time to time and the last renewal, was valid up to 5.3.2000 by M/s. Canara Bank, Govindpur Branch. The petitioner was required to keep signed blank cheques with the defendant to be used in the event of the plaintiff's fa...
Ujjwal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR465(Jhar); 2005(1)BLJR549; [2005(2)JCR26(Jhr)]
M. Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Delip Jereath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. In the instant application filed under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate order for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement and for reference of dispute to the appointed Arbitrator for the adjudication.3. Petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for the purchase of washery products from the different collieries. Subsequently a dispute arose with regard to the release of allotted quantity of slurry which was not settled between the parties. Petitioner's case is that after sending several letters for settlement of the dispute a notice was served upon the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator but nothing was done by the respondents.4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the re...
Pratap Electrical and Co. Vs. Asea Brawn Boveri Ltd. (Abb)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar95; 2005(2)BLJR943; [2005(2)JCR127(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a co-arbitrator for entering into the reference and adjudication of dispute and differences.2. Petitioner was awarded some work order videf work No. 281 dated 13.6.1996 and 280 dated 6.12.1997 by the respondent for execution of certain work for modernization of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro, Jharkhand.3. Petitioner's case is that after completing the work successfully bills were submitted but the respondent made part payment to the petitioner. The total amount of bill to the work executed is Rs. 9,46,555.93/-. Petitioner has sent several letters to the respondent but none of the letters have been responded. Petitioner, therefore, invoked arbitration clause and referred the matter to arbitration in terms of Clause 26 of the agreement appointing Sri S.P. Tiwary, Arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner vide letter dated 8.11.2002. Petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »