Jharkhand Court June 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.
J.P. Steel Udyog Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR262(Jhr)]
1. This matter had been considered on an earlier occasion, when after production of the order sheet in respect of the tender invited by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, it was noticed that the price bid of the respondent No. 4 was sought to be opened after the price bid of other eligible competitors had already been opened. It was noticed further that the price bid of the respondent No. 4 was directed to be opened on instruction of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Board.2. Having regard to the above and in order to obviate any kind of allegation with regard to the tender process, we had requested Mr. Jerath appearing for the Board to take instruction with regard to the tendering process as such. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by him that the Board has decided to re-tender the articles in respect of which present NIT was invited.3. In our view, having regard to the controversy which has arisen and in order to secure the highest bid, the suggestion mad...
Braj Kishor Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1415; [2005(106)FLR993]; [2005(3)JCR274(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 20.5.2004 and for quashing the appellate order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure-6 whereby the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner has further prayed for an order of his reinstatement will all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a constable in B.M.P.-16 at Nausa Khagaul in the year 1986. In the year 1996 he was transferred to B.M.P.-17 in Palamau where he remained till 2002. The said B.M.P.-17 after coming out the State of Jharkhand became Jharkhand Armed Police -7. In the year 2003 the petitioner had taken four days' leave from 24.10.2003 to 28.10.2003. He was to report on duty on 29.10.2003. But in the ...
Litlal Munda Vs. Central Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman-cum- ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1538; [2005(106)FLR1174]; [2005(3)JCR259(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, being No. 2275 dated 5.5.04 issued by the General Manager (P & IR), Central Coal Fields Limited (Annexure-10) whereby the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the competent authority has not agreed to accept that Litlal Munda and Tirth Lal Munda is one and the same person.2. The petitioner's case is that his father Dewan Munda was an employee of Central Coal Fields Limited posted as Mali Grade-I in the office of the General Manager, CCL Rajrappa area, District-Hazaribagh, who died in harness on 27.9.2001 leaving behind two sons, the petitioner (Litlal Munda) aged about 24 years and Umesh Munda aged about 15 years and one daughter aged about 12 years. In the service record and in the nomination form furnished in the department (Annexures-3 & 3/1), the petitioner's father had mentioned the name of the petitioner. After the d...
Automobile Ancilliary Industries Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (No ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR84(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ application has been preferred by the petitioner M/s. Automobile Ancillary Industries, Jamshedpur (Singhbhum East) with two prayer i.e. (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to restore the electric line in the petitioner factory, having connection No. ADLT-3, AV 162, which was disconnected on 20th January, 2000 pursuant to an FIR, lodged by 4th respondent, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to replace the metering box in which the meter as well as CT have been installed in respect to which the petitioner has given several reminders. Further prayer is to direct the respondents not to raise any bill under clause 16.9 of the Electricity Tariff, 1993.2. It appears that the petitioner, a Small Scale Industry, is a Low Tension Industrial Service Consumer, whic...
Goma Ho Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1785; [2005(4)JCR82(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner against the last part of the order dated 7th December, 1999 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Singhbhum (East) in SAR Revision No. 8/99, whereby and where under, the Commissioner while accepted that he was confused in the case, observed that the opposite party must file an appeal before the High Court for necessary amendment of order dated 28th January, 1991, passed in CWJC No. 223 of 1984(R).2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant ones.3. The petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe, while claimed that the land, in question belong to him, filed a petition for restoration under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the CNT Act). It was registered as R.P. Case No. 17/80-81.The aforesaid case was preferred against one Kuthru on the impression that he was making certain const...
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (Now Jseb) and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR85(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In this writ case, the petitioner has challenged the electricity bills, as raised by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board-hereinafter to be referred as JSEB), contained in Annexure- 1, 2 series and 3 series to the writ petition. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to raise fresh bills, taking into consideration the fact that the bills have been raised by the respondents without any basis and without taking into consideration the meter reading and the inspection report.2. According to the petitioner, he got an electric connection from the respondent-Board for his shop of Generator parts, measuring an area of 10' x 14' vide Consumer No. CSBI B-543 category CS 2 at P.B. Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. He used the electric points like 2 bulbs of 100 watt, one fan of 60 watt and two tube-light of 40 watt i.e. total 340 watt since 1989. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents raised electri...
Rameshwar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR259(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction on the respondents to consider their cases for grant of 1st and 2nd time bound promotion on and from the date they have completed 10th year and 25th year of their service. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to provide them the consequential benefits.2. According to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Laboratory Assistant in Bihar Institute of Technology (hereinafter to be referred as 'BIT'), Sindri. The post of Lab. Assistant was later on designated as Demonstrator in the year, 1973. While the 1st petitioner, namely, Rameshwar Singh, was appointed as Lab. Assistant on 15th November, 1965, 2nd petitioner, namely, Anant Deo Mistry, was appointed on 11th October, 1976, 3rd petitioner, namely, Banaras Prasad Sinha, was appointed in the year, 1967 and 4th petitioner, namely, Shailesh Kumar Verma, was appointed in the year, 1966. All of them were designated as...
Rajendra Prasad Rohtagi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1917; [2005(4)JCR274(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner with three fold prayer :(A) For a declaration that the land denoted as Sub-Plot No. 1143/D measuring 5 (five) Kathas 2 (two) Chhataks 10 (ten) square feet from out of R.S. Plot No. 1143 under Khata No. 362 of village Missir Gonda purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 11.5.1990 was never a Government land and the Correction Slip in respect of the same was rightly and validly issued in the name of the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 23rd August, 1990 passed by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 1173 of 1990-91;(B) For a declaration that proceedings for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner vide Correction Slip dated 23rd August, 1990, as initiated by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, by registering Misc. Case No. 58 of 1991-92 was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction;(C) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or d...
Ranendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board Through Its Cha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1701; [2006(108)FLR476]; [2005(3)JCR191(Jhr)]
ORDERI.A. No. 1542 of 20051. Having considered the submissions made on behalf, of the respective parties, we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.The application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned.L.P.A. No. 741 of 20042. Since learned counsel is present on behalf of the respondents, the appeal is taken up on merit.3. As would appear from the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner retired from service on 31st December, 2003. We find that the writ petitioner has prayed that he must be deemed to have continued in service from 31st May, 1966 and his retiral benefits shall be calculated on such basis. Admittedly, the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Controller on 31st May, 1966. On 30th March, 1972, he tendered his resignation and was relieved from his services w.e.f. 6th April, 1972. Therea...
Manoharlal Vs. Baijnath Jalan
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1696; [2005(4)JCR58(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1.This is tenants second appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance. The plaintiff filed eviction suit on the ground of default and personal necessity. The defendant appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that he was inducted in the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. But the plaintiff used to realise the rent for whole calendar year in one lump sum at the end of the month of December. It has been stated that the defendant paid rent by cash or through account payee cheque or bank draft. Subsequently by order dated 17.11.1994 the House Rent Controller determined fair rent of the suit premises at Rs. 4000/- per month. The defendant claimed that from November 94 to March 99 the rent was paid to the plaintiff by cheque through registered post but the same were returned as the plaintiff refused to accept the same. The defendant has also taken a point that the plaintiff has got no title over the suit property as has been held by the De...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »