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.
Pandey Anileshwari Prasad and Ajit Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR513(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In these writ applications common issues, grounded on almost the similar facts, are involved and the writ petitioners are aggrieved by a common order. The said writ applications are, thus, being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in their respective writ applications have prayed for quashing of the part of the order bearing Memo No. 257, dated 16.3.2005 concerning them whereby the petitioners' salary has been withheld coupled with the direction not to take work from them.3. The said order has been passed on the basis of an inquiry report wherein the appointments of the petitioners have been found illegal/forged.4. In W.P. (S) No. 1561 of 2005, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 10.7.1982 issued by the civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh against a sanctioned vacant post of Non-Medical Assistant. After completion of more than three years, the services the petitioner was confirmed by order dated 4.9.1994. In the year, 1985 a...
Urmila MandalaIn and anr. Vs. Girija MadalaIn and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1735; [2005(4)JCR122(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. With the consent of the parties, this revision application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.3. In this revision application the petitioners has challenged the order dated 25/8/2003 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 55/2000 whereby the learned Sub-Judge-I rejected the petition of the plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Sub-Judge has rejected the prayer on two grounds. Firstly, that if the amendment is allowed it will change the character of the suit and secondly, that the suit property was valued less than Rs. 500/- and if the prayer for amendment was allowed then it will confer the jurisdiction on him to try the suit, which he did not have and, therefore, the Court having no jurisdicti...
Kadmi MandalaIn and anr. Vs. Nomita PanjarIn and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1915; [2005(4)JCR400(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The appellants-petitioners in this interlocutory application pray for condonation of delay in filing the CMP No. 270 of 2004.2. It has been stated that the Second Appeal No. 204 of 1987 (P) was filed in Patna High Court and it was transferred to this Court. The said second appeal was listed under the heading 'for orders' on 3.09.2003 and one week's time was granted for taking fresh steps for service of notice on substituted heirs of deceased respondent No. 2. Appellants-petitioners were not aware about the transfer of the second appeal and they could not engage a counsel to attend the case at Ranchi. Subsequently, the appellants-petitioners, on search, could trace out the case and by that time the peremptory time had expired and the second appeal was dismissed. The appellants-petitioners then filed CMP No. 270 of 2004 as soon as they came to know about the dismissal. The delay is not at all intentional.3. Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on beh...
State of Bihar and anr. Vs. Smt. Deopati Davi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR343(Jhr)]
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.1993 and award dated 21.12.1993 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 80/89 on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby reference was allowed and compensation was enhanced.2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land in question was acquired and the Collector assessed the value and passed award and the claimant received the amount under protest and wanted the matter to be referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act.3. The case of the claimant in brief is that the State of Bihar launched a proceeding for acquisition of the land for the purpose of Akaswani and Durdarshan, which was numbered as L.A. Case No. 15/87-88 the lands bearing khata No. 37, plot Nos. 326/3-A and 326/3-...
Jamshedpur Contractors Workers Union Vs. the Management of Tata Iron a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR279(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, who is a workmen's Union, is challenging the order 14.5.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby their application for treating the deposition given on behalf of the workmen as evidence for the purpose of deciding the reference case, has been rejected.3. It appears that earlier the Tribunal gave an award which was challenged in this Court in CWJC. No. 134 of 1999(R) and CWJC No. 359 of 1999(R). The writ petitions were dismissed and then both the Management and the Workmen Union filed Letters Patent Appeals, being Nos. 383 of 2000 and 378 of 2000. The Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of on 13.5.2003. By the said judgment, the Division Bench in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment held as under:12. In the light of what has been stated above, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi and remand the proceeding to the industrialTribunal, Ranchi for a fresh trial and d...
The State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Sadanand Thakur and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1847; [2005(4)JCR158(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal, at the instance of the State of Jharkhand, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on 10th March, 2003, allowing the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and quashing the order dated 27th May, 2000, whereby the services of the writ petitioner had been terminated. While allowing the writ application, the learned single Judge also gave certain directions to the respondents therein, directing them to go to the house of the petitioner personally and to hand over a formal letter of reinstatement, together with all benefits.2. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned Advocate, urged that the learned single Judge had erred in allowing the writ application, having regard to the fact that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was not in keeping with the Rules and had been made by a person, who was not competent to make such appointment, namely, the District Education Offi...
Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors. Vs. Suresh Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1843; [2005(4)JCR157(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties on the question of limitation, we are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.2. The application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for consideration immediately.3. This appeal has been preferred by the Central Coalfields Limited and its authorities against the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3577 of 2000 holding that the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioners was excessive and disproportionate to the unproved charges levelled against them and quashing the same and remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for passing a fresh order on the quantum of punishment in accordance with law.4. The writ petitioners-respondents herein were working as Pay Clerks in Amlo Project of the Central Coalfields Li...
Johna Oraon and anr. Vs. Jaleshwar Sahu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR174(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of respondents although Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondents by one Mr. Sunil Kumar, advocate.2. By the impugned order, the Court below debarred the defendants-petitioners from filing written statement because of the fact that written statement was filed after expiry of the period fixed under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC.3. The petitioners appeared in the suit on 13.1.2004 and filed written statement on 15.4.2004 and an application was also filed for recall of the order by which they were debarred from filing written statement.4. Considering the entire facts of the case and recent decision of Supreme Court reported in : AIR2005SC2441 Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., I am of the view that serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the written statement filed by them is not accepted. In view of this fact, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by ...
indesh Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR397(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 28.2.2004 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 348-B of 1988, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupess Ten Thousand) only, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year.2. As it appears that initially this appellant and other five accused persons were jointly charged for the offence under Section 395, IPC in Sessions Trial No. 348-B/98. After examination of almost all the prosecution witnesses, the present appellant Indesh Mahto and other three accused persons absconded, whereas one other co-accused Keshwar Singh died during the pendency of the trial and therefore, the only remaining accused Sarjug Sah faced the full trial and then he was acquitte...
Anuj Ekka Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-12-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR175(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ, order/orders, direction/directions upon the 5th respondent i.e., Inspector General (Registration), Department of Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, to Immediately forward all the service records, option and representations/ objections, as already preferred by the petitioner, before the State Advisory Committee, so that the matter may be taken up and appropriate decision can be taken by the said State Advisory Committee.2. Counsel for the petitioner while accepts that no final allocation of State has been made by the Central Government under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, submits that because of wrong data shown, showing the petitioner as a member of Scheduled Caste and not forwarding all service details and the option and representation/objection, given by the petitioner, the petitioner apprehends that no proper decision can be taken by the State Advisory Com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »