Jharkhand Court August 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.
Tata Cummins Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR146(Jhr)]; [2006]148STC190(Jharkh)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Tata Cummins Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of set-off of Sales tax w.e.f. 1-1-2004 in terms of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 read with SO Nos. 65, 66 and 67. all dated 12th January, 2002 issued under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 with other consequential reliefs. Alternative prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to dispose of the application preferred by the petitioner on 26th December, 2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), as early as possible, preferably within a time frame.2. The issue involved in the present case is whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of set-off o...
Upendra Singh Vs. Jyoti Prakash Sao and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC784
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. By the impugned judgment and award, several injury cases have been decided by the Claims Tribunal. It is said that a bus while going from Ranchi to Jamshedpur turned turtle as a result of which several persons received injury and one person died. The appellant also filed the claim case for compensation alleging therein that he sustained injury in his right leg and spent a sum of Rs. 20,000 in his treatment. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that in support of the injury neither any witness was examined nor any document was proved by any competent witness, from where it can be ascertained that what kind of injury the appellant had suffered. The Tribunal further held that there was not any documentary evidence to show that how much money he spent for his treatment. Even then in the lack of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation.3. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we do not...
Khagendra Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR2172; [2005(4)JCR40(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against him by Resolution No. 603 dated 5.3.2004 (Annexure 5) being the second successive enquiry despite the exoneration of the petitioner as far back as in the year 1993, and also for directing the respondents to act in accordance with the enquiry report submitted by letter No. 1452 dated 5.7.2004 (Annexure 6) whereby even in such subsequent enquiry the charges levelled against him could not be proved by the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an amendment petition during the pendency of this writ application which was allowed and by which he has further prayed for quashing the Memo No. 603 dated 5.3.2004 (Annexure 7) whereby the concerned respondents in stead of acting on the basis of the enquiry report submitted in the second enquiry, took a decision to initiate fresh enquiry (third enquiry) by appointing another Enquiry Office...
Birendra Kumar Yadav and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR359(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This case relates to appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are eligible for appointment but letters of appointment have not been issued in their favour.2. As the writ petition can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.3. The 1st petitioner is M.A. and also obtained B.Ed. degree from B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') and the 2nd petitioner is graduate in science and also obtained B.Ed. degree from the same University. Both the petitioners have completed B.Ed. study in Ahmadia B.Ed. College' Katihar (1st Petitioner) and Rahmate Alam B.Ed. College, Madhepura (2nd Petitioner) respectively, which are affiliated colleges of the University. They appeared in B.Ed, examination held by the University in February, 1997 of which result was 'declared on 9th January, 1998.4. Counsel for the petitioners su...
Saukat HussaIn Vs. Mustakim Ansari and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ330; [2005(4)JCR290(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Rajgrahia, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner is the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC is aggrieved by that part of the impugned order dated 20.8.2002, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lohardaga wherein while declaring the possession of the lands under proceeding in favour of Madarsa Quasmia, he has declared that Idrish Ansari O.P. No. 2 was the Secretary and Mustakim Ansari O.P. No. 1 was Sadar of the said Madarsa Quasmia.3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds;Firstly, that in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC the scope of which is only to declare physical possession of either of the parties with respect to the lands under proceeding. In the said proceeding the Magistrate cannot decide the question of right and title or any of the party to the proceeding over the lands under proc...
Brahmadeo Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR187(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. By impugned Chatra District Order No. 1009/04, contained in Memo No. 893 dated 19th October, 2004, the 4th respondent-S.P. Chatra informed the petitioner that he will retire w.e.f. 1st November, 2004 having attained 58 years of age. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the age of superannuation has been enhanced from 58 to 60 years by the Government of Jharkhand's Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004.2. Earlier, it was brought to the notice of the Court that another similarly situated person, namely, Mr. Sherjahan Khan was also made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 1st November, 2004, the date on which petitioner was made to retire. Later on, S.P. Chatra having noticed the Government of Jharkhand's Resolution No. 5826 dated 26th October, 2004 recalled his superannuation order, reinstated him (Mr. Sherjahan Khan) and allowed him to continue in service but no such order has been passed in respect to petit...
Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR363(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was initially preferred by the petitioner against the letter, contained in Memo No. 166, dated 14th February, 2004, whereby and where under, one Executing Magistrate-cum-Equiry Officer, Giridih asked the petitioner to appear for fresh enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 8th June, 2004, whereby the said Enquiry Officer has asked the petitioner to appear and submit show cause reply.2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that he having already been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, after second show cause stage, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to appoint another Enquiry Officer to conduct fresh enquiry.3. During the Pendency of the writ petition, the Enquiry Officer submitted a fresh enquiry report on 12th October, 2004, wherein after, the disciplinary authority missed another show cause notice vide Memo No. 2227, dated 17th November, 2004. Thereafter, final order was issued vide Memo No. 450, dated 17th...
Hindustan Engineering Products Co. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR270(Jhr)]; (2007)8VST203(Jharkh)
Altamas Kabir, C.J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by one of its partners, Sri Shyam Sundar Agarwal and having its business premises in Ghatshila. The petitioner's business is registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.2. The petitioner appears to have filed an appeal against the assessment orders passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Singbhum Circle, for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) after completing all the statutory requirements for preferring an appeal, including payment of 20 per cent of tax assessed in terms of Section 45(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (for the assessment year 1993-94, Rs. 45,254/-; and Rs. 1,88,624/- for the assessment year 1994-95).3. The said appeals were ultimately allowed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Singhbhum Circle, Jamshedpur, on 23rd March, 2002 and 28th February, 2004, for the two assessment years. On receipt, of the orders passe...
S.K. Malhotra Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR2177; [2005(4)JCR293(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner an employee of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited was found guilty for the offence under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act, by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in Case No. CI-994 of 1999 T.R. No. 136 of 2001 vide judgment dated 4.9.2003 and thereby, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was further directed by the trial Court that the petitioner shall vacate the quarter in his possession within two months from the date of the judgment and in default thereof, he shall have to go to imprisonment for a term of one year.3. The petitioner in an appeal challenged the said judgment of the Special Judge.) The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 15.6.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2003 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.4. The petitioner has ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashok Arc
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(193)ELT399(NULL)
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been preferred on behalf of the Revenue raising a doubt relating to legality and propriety of the order dated 30th April, 2002, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter to be referred as 'CEGA Tribunal') in Appeal No. E-680/2001. By the said order, the CEGA Tribunal has accepted the stand of the appellant (respondent herein), set aside the order dated 5th September, 2001, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Patna and directed the Revenue to refund the amount in cash to the respondent-appellant.2. The respondent M/s. Ashok Arc, Panchet Road, Chirkunda, District-Dhanbad claimed refund of Rs. 42,503.51 (rupees forty two thousand five hundred three and fifty one paise only) pursuant to Order Nos. A-598-599, dated 19th May, 1998, passed by the CEGA Tribunal in 1, 2 Appeals E-3441, 3442/93. The said amoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »