Jharkhand Court May 2005 Judgments
Jharkhand High Court (Own Motion) Vs. Babban Ram
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1556
Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The background of this proceeding is that the contemnor/ opposite party, Babban Ram, filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1744/2002, before this Court, seeking direction to declare him to have been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, with effect from 20.8.1994, mainly on the ground that the respondent authorities had no jurisdiction to deny the petitioner the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, when he has already been exonerated from the charges made against him in the departmental proceedings No. 94/91 and 3/95.2. It is relevant to quote few of the relevant and categorical statement of the petitioner made in the following paragraphs of the writ petition :-'13. That except for the two pending departmental proceedings referred to above, the service record of the petitioner was outstanding. Petitioner had not earned any major punishment nor any adverse entry has been made in his Annual Confidential Reports.16. That the petitioner was held guilty in ...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro G.E. Medical System Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC381; [2005(3)JCR320(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner-M/s. Wipro GE Medical System has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.4.2005 whereby the tender was decided in favour of respondent No. 6, M/s. Siemens India Limited for the supply of radiological equipments.2. Pursuant to the tender notice both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 submitted their tenders consisting of technical bid and price bid. Petitioner's further case is that the technical offer made by the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was not compared by the Purchase Committee and no opportunity was given to the petitioner for demonstration of the equipment. It was only on 24.4.2005 the petitioner could come to know that the work order has been issued in favour of respondent No. 6.3. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner-company is the most diversified Engineering . of India. The petitioner is a leading business house with a turnover of US 1 Billio...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC285; [2005(3)JCR314(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.3.2005 issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Chhotanagpur Santhal Paragana, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the work in question has been allotted to respondent No. 7.2. The respondent No. 6-Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Works Division, Seraikella-Kharsawan issued NIT for construction of various roads under R.E.O., Seraikella. The petitioner along with others including respondent No. 7 submitted their tenders. The value of the work was Rs. 1,84,55,000/-. The petitioner's case is that one of the terms of the NIT was that the contractors must have road making machinery and five-year experience related to File foundation, Wall foundation and open foundation. It is contended that although the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer recommended the name of the petitioner for allotment of work; but the Chief Engineer without approval of the Committee, allotted the...
Tag this Judgment!Navratandas and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Through ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar7; 2006(2)ARBLR236(Jhar); IV(2005)BC289; [2005(3)JCR432(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an independent arbitrator and for reference of the dispute arose between the parties to the said arbitrator for adjudication.2. The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of JRD Tata Technical Training Institute at Gopalpur, District Ganjam, Orissa vide work order dated 10.12.1996. The contract work was valued at Rs. 4.48 crores, but as per the drawings issued the total contract work on accepted rates was about Rs. six crores. The petitioner's case is that in course of work, the scope of work was revised drastically and as such the petitioner raised claim of Rs. 96.35 lakhs, but the claim of the petitioner was not settled. It is contended that the respondents have made part payment and inspite of notice, failed to pay the entire amount. The petitioner, thereafter, sent notice dated 15.11.2002 to the respondent demanding Rs. 19...
Tag this Judgment!U.K. and Co. Through Its Proprietor Sri Utpal Kumar Modi Vs. Bharat Co ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar6; [2005(3)JCR434(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The present arbitration application has been filed for appointment of arbitrator in accordance with provision of Section 11(6)(C) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The petitioner was allotted work of transportation of surplus earth from Bhojudih Coal Washery. The work was allotted by work order dated 7.3.2000 pursuant to the notice dated 20.8.1999. The work has to be completed within the stipulated time. The petitioner's case is that after completion of the job, several letters were sent but the bills were not finalized. Ultimately dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner, therefore, invoked Clause 9 of the Agreement which is arbitration clause and gave notice for reference of the dispute for arbitration.3. The respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has already moved the Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad by filing application under Section 9 of the said Act which was registered as Misc. (Arbitration) Case No...
Tag this Judgment!Jharkhand Party Through Its President Sri N.E. Horo Vs. State of Jhark ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1559; [2005(3)JCR448(Jhr)]
1. This writ petition was filed before a learned Single Judge by the Jharkhand Party, but was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 21st April, 2005 having regard to the fact that several important questions of law relating to the interpretation of various constitutional provisions had been raised in the writ petition. The matter was thereafter taken up by the Division Bench and notices were issued to all the respective parties. All the parties were duly represented by their learned counsels and submissions were advanced on all of their behalf.2. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :(i) 'For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including a writ of certiorari, to quash the election of Sri Inder Singh Namdhari (Respondent No. 2) as Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, being elected illegally, malafidely and contrary to Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.(ii) And, in the alter...
Tag this Judgment!Subernrekha Enterprises Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar47; [2005(4)JCR139(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Subernrekha Enterprises, through its proprietor, Shri Alok Khaitan, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents Board to activate the new electrical connection of the petitioner which the Board has sanctioned and granted and which the Board is withholding on the ground that there are some dues of the Board from another partnership firm, namely M/s. Bharat Agrico which has been closed down in 1997.2. Petitioner's case is that the petitioner set up an Induction Furnace Unit for casting Iron components to be manufactured. For that the petitioner required electrical connection to the extent of 310 KVA. The petitioner said to have deposited the requisite fees and the petitioner's application was finally sanctioned after deposit of the security amount a written agreement was executed on 11.12.2004. After completing all the formalities only the activation of the electrical line was to be done by the Board but the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Krishna Budhia Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4235
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire Complaint Case being C.P. Case No. 283/2004 pending in the Court of judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro including the order dated 12-8-2004 passed in the afore said case taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C.2. The order dated 12-8-2004 taking cognizance reads as under :-'The complainant is represented through counsel. The ease is fixed for order on the basis of the enquiry conducted Under Section 202 of Cr. P.C.It has to be determined whether there are sufficient material on record to issue process against the proposed accused.It is case of the complainant that, in year 1996 the accused entered into an agreement for transport of raw-materials of goods from Bokaro to Ramgarh at his factory, with the complainant. The complainant is proprietor of Laxmi Transport Agency and Shree Laxmi Transport Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary P.H ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR223(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1627 dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure 8) and also the office Order No. 132 dated 28.10.2004 (Annexure 10). The petitioner has also sought declaration that he is deemed to be posted as Work Sarkar at Drinking Water and Sanitation, Swarnarekha Distribution Division (Ranchi Section), Ratu Road, Ranchi and that he is entitled to get his salary from the post of Swarnarekha Distribution Division (Ranchi Section), Ratu Road, Ranchi. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to rejoin and perform his duty at Swarnarekha Distribution (Ranchi Section), Ratu Road, Ranchi.2. The petitioner's case is that at the relevant period he was posted as Work Sarkar at Drinking Water and Sanitation, Swarnarekha Distribution Division (Ranchi Section), Ratu Road, Ranchi. By office Order No. 58 dated 28.6.2003 several persons including the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Chotanagpur Wood Products Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR442(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.1.2004 passed by Conservator of Forest being the appellate authority in Appeal No. 3/2003 whereby he has confirmed the order dated 30.7.2003 passed by the Licensing Authority-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla Forest Division by which the Saw Mill licence of the petitioner has been suspended. Petitioner has also challenged the order as contained in letter dated 28.10.2000 issued by the Secretary, Govt. of erstwhile State of Bihar to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests whereby he has directed that Saw Mills, Veneer Mills, Plywood Mills and other timber based industry should not be allowed to function within 5 Km. from the Notified Forest Area. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the various letters time to time issued by the authorities of the respondents.2. Petitioner's case is that it established a Saw Mill in January, 1996 having licence No. 24 dated 18.1.1996. The said licence was b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »