Jharkhand Court March 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.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR147(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL for short) against the Notification No. 7/Lab. D-36013/ 99 L&E-221;, dated 7th August, 1999, whereby the Government of Bihar referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. The petitioner has also challenged the Award dated 12th June, 2002, pronounced on 4th September, 2002 by learned Presiding Officer, Labour, Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 23/99, whereby and whereunder, the Reference has been answered in favour of the workman. The petitioner has been directed to reinstate him (Md. Ekbal Ansari) treating his date of birth as 20th March, 1949.2. It appears that Md. Ekbal Ansari was a Senior Technician-cum-Operative, Staff No. 275132 under the petitioner and was posted in the S.D. Department of Bokaro Steel Plant. He was retired from service treating his date of birth as 20th March, 1940. Thereafter, Md. Ekbal Ansa...
Ram Lakhan Mahto Vs. Bihar Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR129(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant, who was appointed in the year 1971 as Line Mistry, applied for correction of his date of birth vide representation dated 18th April, 1995, which was rejected by the respondents vide letter No. 538, dated 22nd April, 1995, as quoted hereunder :'Shri Ram Lakhan Mahato,Line Mistry,Joy Ampur Colliery.D/Sir,We are in receipt of your application dated 18.4.1995, in respect of correction of date of birth. In this connection this is to inform you that the matter has been examined as per record available with us and found that your age has been assessed by the Appex Medical Board and date of birth record as per Medical Board is 20.10.1944. As such your request cannot be conceded to.Yours faithfully,Sd/- Manager/Agent,Joyrampur Colliery'2. After seven years of rejection i.e., in the year 2002, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the rejection order dated 22nd April, 1995. Learned single Judge having noticed the submission, held that the qu...
Jadu Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR429(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 including the order dated 29.6.1999 passed in complaint (Official) Case No. 57 of 1999 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that O.P. No. 2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad (Complainant) lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad stating inter alia therein that a proceeding under. Section 144, Cr PC being M.P. Case No. 409 of 1998 was started against the petitioners and one Nand Lal Sharma (witness in this case). In the proceeding, both parties appeared and filed their show-cause and also photocopy of their documents on 27.7.1998. On behalf of the petitioners, one photocopy of the registered partition deed No. 407 dated 14.8.1927 was filed but the other side suspec...
M.P. Registrar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR425(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including order dated 9.2.1999 passed in. C/1 Case No. 67/98, whereby and where-under learned ACJM, Seraikella took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 120-B/406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Facts leading to the filing of the application are that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint petition alleging, inter alia, therein that some time in the month of February, 1991 he was introduced to petitioner No. 1, M.P. Registrar, who was then posted as advisor in TISCO and was holding very influential position and the complainant was also supplying different items there as supplier contractor. Petitioner M.P. Registrar again met the complainant in Beldih Club, Jamshedpur and during the talks when petitioner No. 1 came to know that complainant-opposite party No. 2 was also supplying electronic items used i...
indu Automobiles Through Its Partner Shri Phool Chandra Mishra Vs. the ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR315(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. I have heard Mr. G.N. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter alia, for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for deciding the dispute arose between the parties.2. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass.3. The petitioner is S.S.I. unit situated in Bokaro Industrial Area said to have been given ancillary status to Bokaro Steel Plant to cater the needs of the mother plant. The petitioner was registered for job works of the P.P.S. of Bokaro Steel Plant and it was awarded various jobs from P.P.S. of Bokaro Steel Plant on labour rates/Job rates basis. It is stated that the Bokaro Steel Plant issued materials for machining works on job rate basis. The Central Excise Department issued various letters to the petitioner for payment of Excise duty on the jobs done by it. The matter was rais...
(Smt.) Shanti Kachhap Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR107(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner's case is that her husband while working as a skilled Khalasi died in harness on 19.9.2001. It is stated that although Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division-I, Ranchi sanctioned the payment of Group Saving Scheme of Rs. 75,000/- and Deputy Director of Accounts, Ranchi, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi also sanctioned the DCR gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,24,701/- but nothing has been paid to the petitioner till date.2. In the facts of the case I direct the respondents to release the entire death-cum-retiral benefits together with statutory interest within a period of two months from the late of receipt/production of a copy of this order.3. If the petitioner has any further claim, she is at liberty to file representation before the concerned respondent who shall consider and' dispose of the representation within one month thereafter....
Deepak Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1747; [2005(4)JCR120(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier a certificate case was filed against the owner of the house who was father of the petitioner and before passing of any order in certificate proceeding, father of the petitioner died and therefore, certificate proceeding was dropped and there was no appeal or revision filed against the order passed in the certificate proceeding which was dropped. The instant case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 379, IPC and 173/138 of the Indian Electricity Act. The Bill amounting to Rs. 52,122/- has been sent to the petitioner for payment and the amount includes Rs. 5,000/- as charge for damage.3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that after death of his father, the house was transferred in the name of his step mother and, therefore, he will not be liable to pay the bill and further that since no appeal or revision a...
Sourya Metals Limited Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Boards and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR140(Jhr)]
ORDER1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 754 of 2005 which reads as follows :2/17.2.2005 Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the Board, prays for time to seek instructions and file counter-affidavit.Put up this case on 9th March, 2005.So far as the prayer of the petitioner for the stay of the recovery of the aforesaid amount is concerned, I am not inclined to stay the recovery of the amount specially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bihar 440 Volt Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh and Ors., reported in : (1997)11SCC380 .2. The only issue, required to be determined in the connected writ petition and the present appeal, is 'whether the Jharkhand State Electricity Board can demand Delayed Payment Surcharge on the security deposit of the appellant ?'3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Delayed Payment Surcharge is not payable of ...
Tirupati Products and Haji Shah HussaIn Buksh Khand Sons Khan and Sons ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR806; [2005(2)JCR212(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the writ petitions, having been preferred by the petitioners against common Notification dated 18th June, 2004, issued under Memo No. 11 Sva. F-2-48/2002-385 (ii)/Sva, whereby and whereunder, the respondent, Secretary, Health and Family Welfare-cum-Director, Health Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi, in exercise of powers under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, has imposed ban on production, manufacture and sale of 'gutka' or 'pan masala' or 'gul', containing tobacco or without tobacco from the date of issuance of the Notification, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main plea, taken by the petitioners, is that the impugned Notification dated 18th June, 2004 is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India.3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar Notification came up for consideration before the...
Rungta Projects Ltd. Vs. Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar64; 2005(3)ARBLR182(Jhar); 2005(2)BLJR1084; [2005(2)JCR209(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitrator in relation to disputes and differences which have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in connection with the contract for transportation of coal in various collieries.2. The petitioner carried out the work of transportation of coal. It has executed the work of transportation of coal for the collieries of Tapin North and Tapin South, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, Bokaro pursuant to the letter of intent issued on behalf of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, (in short TVNL), Patna. In course of time disputes and differences arose on account of non-settlement of various claims. The petitioner said to have made several representations to the various authorities of the respondents for settlement of claim and lastly by a notice dated 21.3.2003 requested for reference of the disputes and differences to Arbi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »