Jharkhand Court April 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.
Ram Deo Singh Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR598]; [2005(3)JCR107a(Jhr)]; (2005)IIILLJ467Jhar
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner who is an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release his pensionary benefits which is payable to him from 17.7.2003.2. The petitioner's case is that he had joined the service of the respondents as Grade III worker. At the time of entry in the service, his date of birth was recorded as 18.7.1945 in the Personal Data Form, on the basis of the educational certificate. According to the petitioner, he is covered by the pensionary scheme of the respondents and for that purpose statutory deductions were made from the salary of the petitioner. In the said scheme, the age of superannuation was 58 years and the deductions were to be made accordingly. Subsequently the age of superannuation of the employees of the public sector undertakings was extended to 60 years. Thus, the petitioner continued in service till 2005. However, as per the pensionary scheme, on attaining the age ...
Lakhan Chandra Pramanik and ors. Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and anr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1699; [2005(4)JCR66(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. This Civil Application is against the order dated 16.9.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Dhanbad whereby the appeal has been dismissed upholding the order dated 6.9.2001 passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 94 of 1993.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 94 of 1993 and has filed the said suit against the defendant praying decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over Schedule 'C' of the plaint and a decree directing the defendants to execute the deed of exchange in favour of the plaintiffs for equal area of lands as shown in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. The plaintiffs had valued the suit at Rs. 500/-.3. The defendant had appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit was grossly under valued and the proper valuation of the suit should not be less than Rs. 60,00,000/-. Subs...
Tata B.P. Solar India Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC267; [2005(3)JCR161(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Although this matter has been listed 'For Orders' for fresh service of notice on respondent No. 3, having heard Mr. Ananda Sen, counsel appearing in support of the appeal, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending in view of the facts involved.2. It appears that tenders were invited with regard to installation of Solar Power lighting system in the Government Tribal residential schools and hostels by way of Pilot Project and the State of Jharkhand took a policy decision regarding inviting tenders only from Government of India Enterprises which had executed similar Government aided projects in remote areas. Aggrieved by the fact that the private agencies have been completely excluded from the tender, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that a valid classification on an intelligible differentia distinguishing the Government Companies from private enterprises had been made out and, accordingly, there was no necessi...
Ghanshyam Dusadh and ors. Vs. Kishun Dusadh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR160(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 9 of 2000 whereby amendment application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected.3. The original plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit being Title suit No. 21 of 1994 for the following reliefs :(a) That the wrong entry in register II be declared illegal, in-operative and rent receipt be stopped issuing in the name of defendants.(b) To declare all the documents of the 'defendants as forged, fabricated, illegal and in-operative.(c) To declare the defendants illegal in the interfere of possession and for the defendants to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs.(d) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.(e) Any other relief and reliefs be awarded to the plaintiffs as your honour deem fit and proper.4. The suit was decreed a...
Sourya Metals Ltd. Vs. the Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through I ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR437(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether interest or delayed payment surcharge shall be charged and realized by the Electricity Board on account of late deposit of security amount.2. The petitioner is running an industrial unit at Pardih, Mango, Jamshedpur. The petitioner applied for electric connection and vide letter dated 15.5.2004 the Board sanctioned electricity connection under High Tension Tariff for Induction Furnace. In the sanction letter for 970 KVA, a sum of Rs. 29,44,920/- was directed to be deposited by the petitioner as security amount. The petitioner vide application dated 14.5.2002 requested the General Manager-cum-Chief engineer, Singhbhum Area Electricity Board to fix instalment in connection with payment of security deposit. The General Manager vide letter dated 16.5.2002 granted 10 instalments for deposit of the aforesaid security amount. Petitioner paid first instalment of Rs. 2,94.492/- on 23.4.2...
Sri Narayan Das Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR724]; [2005(3)JCR82(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Annexure 2 whereby his age has been determined as between 54-56 i.e. 55 years on 11.4.2000 in variation of the date of birth recorded in his service book, opened as far back as on 15.12.1977 in which his date of birth has been recorded as 19.12.1947.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as unskilled Khalasi by the Bihar State Electricity Board and was posted at Patratu Thermal Power Station. In his service book, which was opened after joining the service, his date of birth was recorded as 19.12.1947. According to the date of birth recorded in the service book, the petitioner would attain 60 years of age i.e. the age of superannuation in December 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden the petitioner was directed to appear at a Medical Board at Patna in the year 2000, although there was never any dispute regarding his age/date of birth since the date, th...
Ram Kumari Devi Vs. Bhagirath Mal Tibriwal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR322(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Review Application against the impugned order. The main ground, which has been taken by the petitioner, is that due to wrong legal advice, Title Appeal No. 5/2004 was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Pakur against; the impugned judgment and decree. But subsequently having come to learn that the said judgment and decree was not appealable, he withdrew the said appeal and filed this Civil Review Application. The opposite ' parties have appeared and filed reply to the petition stating therein that the earlier case was remitted back by the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 1312/1991 and as such the petitioner was well aware about the proper legal course that the judgment and decree is not appealable. According to the opposite parties, the appeal was thus deliberately filed to buy more time and the plea of ignorance is a mere pretence.2. However, it is an admitted fact that aga...
The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR433a(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbla, J.1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Dr. Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent this appeal is disposed at the admission stage.2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.7.2004 passed by learned single Judge in WPC No. 3428/04. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the learned single Judge clarified that the notification dated 9.6.2003 is not stayed.3. The office has pointed out a defect with regard to maintainability of the appeal against the impugned order, so we have heard learned counsel on the question of maintainability also.4. Before deciding the question of maintainability of the appeal I would like to discuss the relevant facts of the case.5. The petitioner appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition being WPC No. 3428/04, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing, modifying, cancelling and v...
Hussaini Mahto and ors. Vs. Hulash Mahto and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar87; [2006(2)JCR330(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.I.A. No. 2308 of 20041. In this application the appellants have prayed for admitting the certified copy of sale-deed dated 10.4.1935 by way of additional evidence, dispensing with its formal proof. By order dated 13.5.2005 this Court had allowed the appellants' prayer for admitting the said sale-deed as additional evidence subject to proving the same in accordance with law. According to the appellants, the respondents had filed SLP before the Supreme Court against the said order, which has been dismissed. No counter-affidavit has been filed in opposition of the said petition.2. Mr. G.M. Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that after registration of the sale deed, the Registering Authorities keeps its record in discharge of their official duty. According to Mr. Chandra, therefore, the same assumes character of a public document under the provisions of Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. According to Mr. Chandra, certified c...
GayasuddIn @ GayasuddIn Mian @ Gayasudding Ansari and anr. Vs. State o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR851; 2005CriLJ4230; [2005(3)JCR501(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.2. The petitioner, an accused in a case registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC in connection with Bhawnathpur PS Case No. 43 of 2004, has filed this application for grant of bail.3. The petitioner is also an accused in Bhawnathpur PS Case No. 44/2004 registered under Sections 399/402 of the IPC and Section 25(1-b) a 26/35 of the Arms Act.4. According to the petitioner, he was remanded in the present case, i.e. Bhawnathpur PS Case No. 43/2004 on 9.8.2004 and since the final form was not submitted by the Police within a statutory period and, as such, the petitioner filed an application for bail under the provisions of Section 167(2), Cr PC and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa by order dated 8.11.2004, directed the petitioner to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr PC. The petitioner filed bail bonds on 9.11.2004.5. It appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »