Jharkhand Court July 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.
Niranjan Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR249(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the Notification, contained in Memo No. 3600, dated 11th July, 2005, issued by the respondent-State through its Panchayat Raj and N.R.E.P. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. By the said order, the respondents, giving reference to Notification No. 4898, dated 11th December, 2004 and Letter No. 1028, dated 1st April, 2005, asked the petitioner to join the Headquarter and one Sri Braj Mohan Kumar, Executive Engineer, Rural Development (Special Division), Ranchi has been asked to hold additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rural Development (Special Division), Simdega, which the petitioner was holding earlier.2. While the petitioner has challenged the impugned relieving order dated 11th July, 2005 as illegal, has also alleged mala fide against the Minister-in-charge, Rural Development and Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who has been impleaded as 5th respondent...
Subodh Kr. Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR505(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1.In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the advertisement No. 03/2004-05 so far it relates to cut-off date fixed for appearing in the examination for appointment on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor.2. The petitioner is an Advocate presently practicing in Dumka Civil Court. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short the commission), vide its advertisement No. 03/2004-05 invited applications for appointment on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. One of the conditions put in the advertisement is that the upper age limit as on 31.1.2005 should not exceed 35 years for the general category candidates.3. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that although the State of Jharkhand came into existence in November, 2000, no examination for filling up the post of Public Prosecutor was held and for the first time the impugned advertisement has been issued for filing up the post of Public Prosecutors and,...
Annapurna Saw Mill Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)BLJR1660; [2005(3)JCR377(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This writ petition was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge by order dated 30th June, 2004, having regard to the issues involved.2. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm which was engaged in the business of operating a saw mill, established in the year, 1972, situated in Ward No. VI, Holding No. 26/A. Old Hazaribag Road, which conies under the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.3. The petitioner was granted a licence under the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 and the Factories Act, 1948 and is also registered under the Bihar Rules for the Establishment of Saw Pits and Establishment and Regulation of Depots, 1983. The business of operating saw mills is regulated at present by the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) 1990, which requires the person who is desirous of operating a saw mill to obtain a licence for the same. Section 7 of the said Act makes a provision regarding grant, renewal, revocation or suspension of such licence. Rule 3 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation)...
Arvind Kumar Das and ors. and Lakshmi Chand Prasad and ors. Vs. Ranchi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR508(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two writ petitions since common facts and law are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners, in these two writ petitions, have prayed for a direction upon the respondent-University for publication of their result of B.Sc. Engineering 2nd year examination, 2003 which was conducted by the Ranchi University in the month of July, 2004.3. In WPC No. 645/05 the case of the petitioners is that they are the diploma holders in engineering and were admitted directly in 2nd year of B.Sc. Engineering course in Cambridge Institute of Technology. They were the regular students of the said college. It is stated that the said Institute is an affiliated college of Ranchi University. The University registered the students who had to appear in the said examination including the petitioners. It is stated that the University issued registration slips mentioning the registration numbers of the examinees. The petitioners fill...
Muzaffar HussaIn Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR177]; [2005(4)JCR180(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 18.9.2004 issued by Director, Directorate of Land Records and Measurement directing the Settlement Officer, Ranchi to treat the date of appointment of the petitioner as 3.8.1964 and as such to make him superannuate on completion of 40 years of service w.e.f 2.8.2004 and to pay him retiral benefits.2. Petitioner's case is that he was appointed and joined the post of Mohariar on 3.6.1964 at Muzaffarpur. In 1971 he was transferred to Gaya but due to illness he could not join at Gaya and as such he was put under suspension and thereafter he was discharged from his service. After about six years the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Mohariar at Muzaffarpur. It is stated by the petitioner that he continuously worked to the satisfaction of all concerned. In 1996 a gradation list was published wherein the petitioner's name was mentioned at Serial No. 376 showing his dat...
Mansarovar Niwas Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR163(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In all these writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The writ petitioners have prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 729/2005 dated 12.5.2005 whereby the Commissioner of Excise, Govt. of Jharkhand invited six persons for negotiation for the purpose of allotting tender for wholesale supply of country made liquor.3. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of the instant writ petitions are that a tender was issued and published in the newspaper dated 17.1.2005 inviting tender for the wholesale supply of country liquor in the State of Jharkhand for the period 18th March 2005 to 31st March 2008. The petitioners, alongwith others, participated in the tender process by submitting tender in the prescribed manner for different districts. It is worth to mention here that grants in respect of wholesale supply of liquor was also proposed to be made in ...
Nasreen Begum @ Nasreen Khatoon Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ326; II(2005)DMC764; [2005(3)JCR371(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal has been put up by the department for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure together with a note regarding its maintainability as an appeal.2. Chapter V of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which contains Section 19 provides for appeals and revisions against the orders of the Family Court. Section 19(1) provides for appeal as a matter of right from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. In our view, under the said provision, the question of hearing an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11, CPC would not arise. On the other hand, Sub-section (4) of Section 19 makes special provision for revision either suo moto or otherwise by the High Court in respect of orders passed under...
Laxmi Prasad Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR75(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction upon the Respondents to pay him the retiral benefits, such as, Pension; Gratuity; Leave Encashment; amount on commutation of Pension; GPF; GSS. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay him salary for the period from 21st March, 2003 to 31st January, 2004; arrear of annual increments for the period from July, 1997 to January 2004, and to pay him the arrears of pay on revision, as per the guidelines issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the JSEB.)2. According to the petitioner, he was in the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the BSEB) and his services were placed under the JSEB vide order, contained in letter No. 217, dated 10th March, 2003. Thereafter, he joined the JSEB and subsequently retired from the post of Controller on 31st January, 2004 while he was working in the Head Office.3. It ap...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Doranda Branc ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC356; 2005(3)BLJR2017; [2005(3)JCR366(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in PLA Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat raised by the petitioner has been decided in favour of the claimant- respondent.2. Respondent No. 2 obtained a Burglary and House Breaking Policy from the petitioner-Insurance Company. As alleged, on 18/19.8.2002 a burglary took place and respondent No. 2 submitted claim with the Insurance Company for a loss of Rs. 11,14,577/-. For the said occurrence F.I.R. was also lodged. Subsequently, the claim of respondent No. 2 was repudiated by the Insurance Company. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 255 of 2004 before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi which was dismissed by the Consumer Forum by order dated 31.8.2004 holding that deficiency in service relating to a commercial activity is not to be considered by Consumer Forum as s...
Gulbahar Sheikh and anr. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pandey and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1912; [2005(3)JCR374(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.1999 passed by 1st Sub-Judge, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 8/97 whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and has ordered for delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs-opposite parties.2. The plaintiff-opposite parties filed the aforementioned title suit for a decree for putting them in possession of the suit property by the process of Court after evicting the defendants-petitioners therefrom. Plaintiffs' case, in short, is that the suit land measuring 10-1/2 decimals comprised of plot No. 17 within Khata No. 31 of village, Jhalua along with structures standing thereon was purchased by them from Md. Issa Sheikh and Md. Israil Sheikh by virtue of two registered sale-deeds dated 24.10.1991 and 6.4.1996 and thereafter they came in possess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »