Jharkhand Court September 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.
Roshan Jahan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR380(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. A joint application on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been filed being LA. No. 2368 of 2005.3. Mr. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.A. Khan, appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the parties have settled their disputes outside the Court on the terms mentioned in the said Interlocutory Application and prayed that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the compromise.4. Learned counsels appearing for the State and RIMS have got no objection to such prayer.5. In the circumstances, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the Compromise Petition being IA No. 2368 of 2005. Consequently, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay the legally payable dues to the heirs of late Dr. Md. Nizamuddin mentioned in the said Interlocutory Application as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy ...
Probasish Das Gupta Vs. Juthika Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR2365; [2006(1)JCR6(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. Defendant No. 3 petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd February, 2005 passed in Partition Suit No. 153 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sub-Judge-IX, Ranchi, while rejected the petition, filed by defendant No. 3-petitioner under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with Order VIII, Rule 11(d) and Order XIV, Rule 2(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has also allowed the petition, filed by the defendant/2nd and 4th respondents under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for transposing them as plaintiffs in the suit, in question.2. Before deciding the issue, as raised in the writ petition, it is necessary to notice the relationship in between the petitioner and respondents. The plaintiff/1st respondent, Juthika Das Gupta, wife of late Paritosh Das Gupta, is the mother of defendant No. 3/petitioner and other defendant/ 2nd, 3nd and 4th respondents.3. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed Partition Suit No. 153 of ...
Shanti Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR380(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. The mother of petitioner, namely, (late) Laxmi Mishra, who was in the services of the State, died in harness. Thereafter, according to petitioner, she applied for compassionate appointment. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 19th April, 2005 recommended her name for appointment against Class III post. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent thereafter have not issued any letter of appointment.2. Counsel for the State submitted that the matter will be looked into and if so required necessary decision may be taken.3. In the facts and circumstances, the case is remitted with direction to the District Superintend of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the recommendation of the Distri...
State of Jharkhand Through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Vs. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR58(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner State of Jharkhand against the Award dated 12th November, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar, in Reference Case No. 4 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, while the reference has been answered in favour of the workman (respondent herein), the petitioner State has been directed to reinstate the workman-respondent, on the same post with the same service conditions and pay, but without back wages.2. The main question to be determined in the present case is :Whether the impugned Award dated 12th November, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Reference Case No. 4 of 2003 is legal ?3. A Reference under Section 10-1(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') was made by the competent Government to the Labour Court, Deoghar for determination of the following question :Whether the termination of the services of the workman S...
Mahesh Prasad S/O Shri Ishwar Sah and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)BLJR2350; I(2006)DMC340; [2006(1)JCR176(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2003 and 7.11.2003 respectively, passed by Sri Kumar Kamal, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 1, Bermo at Tenughat in ST. No. 252 of 1995, convicting the appellants under Sections 304B/34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. The informant Ramjee Prasad PW-13 lodged FIR on 28.2.1995 alleging inter alia that his daughter-Bina Devi, aged about 19 years, was married to Mahesh Prasad appellant No. 1. During marriage, dowry was given, by which the accused persons were not satisfied and appellants and two brothers of appellant No. 1 used to make further demand of a Hero Honda Motorcycle and a Colour TV. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, they used to torture his daughter. His daughter remained fearful and worried as there was threat to her life. During preceding 'Chhath' festival, his daughter was branded with hot iron rod near her waist and ha...
Sudeshwar Sahu Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR479(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 258, dated 15th March, 2005. Issued by the District Superintendent of Education. Lohardaga, whereby and whereunder, giving reference to a proceeding of the District Education Establishment Committee, Lohardaga, dated 9th March, 2005 and letter No. 389, dated 8th February, 2005, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher has been rejected.The petitioner has been informed that he being overage for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher and there being no post reserved for Other Backward Class, his case can not be considered for appointment.The petitioner has also prayed to call for and quash letter No. 389, dated 8th February, 2005, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.2. The petitioner, having possessed B.A. (Hons) qualificatio...
Ramadhar Singh Vs. Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR62(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 28th January, 2005. passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in reference Case No. 09 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the learned Court below has answered the reference in favour of the Management and against the petitioner and has upheld the date of birth, entered in the service book of the petitioner as 1st July, 1940.2. The petitioner was appointed in the services of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'HEC') on 1st November, 1966. After appointment, service book was opened. On the basis of date of birth i.e. 1st July, 1940, as entered in the service book, the petitioner was to superannuate in the year, 2000. It appears that a dispute was raised and the appropriate Government made reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the following issues ;Whether the entry of date of birth 1.7.1940...
Narendra Nath Supakar Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the defendant/appellant/petitioner against the order dated 28th June, 2005, passed by the learned 12th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, in Title Appeal No. 135 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate Court while held that after the death of 1st appellant, his compounder/2nd appellant is not entitled to proceed with the case, dismissed the appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 09 of 1998 in the Court of learned Munsif against Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta and his compounder Narendra Nath Supakar (petitioner herein) for evicting them from Schedule 'A' premises of the plaint, on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- and on the ground of personal necessity as also on the ground of subletting the suit premises. The plaintiff/1st respondent claimed to have purchased the scheduled land and...
Baleshwar Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR379(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction upon the respondents to pay him the retiral benefits such as CPF, amounting to Rs. 6,37,829/-, gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,21,992/- and leave encashment amounting to Rs. 65,204/-.2. According to the petitioner, he superannuated from the services of Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the JSEB) on 30th April, 2004 as Head Lineman, Ramgarh.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents have sanctioned CPF amount vide Office Order No. 209 dated 16th November, 2004, gratuity amount sanctioned vide Memo No. 2480 dated 8.11.2004 and leave encashment amount sanctioned vide Office Order No. 157 dated 20th August, 2004 but the amount has not yet been paid to him.7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the JSEB submitted that the matter will be looked into and appropriate step will be taken in accordance with law.5. In the facts and circumstances, the case...
Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR203(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two writ petitions the short question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners are liable to pay interest on the late payment royalty and also whether interest on royalty is recoverable from the respondent as public demand.2. The petitioners' case is that there are two Collieries known as Kurhurbaree and Serampur collieries in the district of Giridih. Kurhurbaree Colliery was a part of erstwhile Kurhurbaree Estate and by virtue of indenture the East India Railway Company took the lease of the said Colliery from the Secretary of State for India in Council and is recorded in Tauzi No. 15 of Giridih Collectorate. In the Khewat of this Tauzi, the then Secretary of State for India in Council is recorded as Khewatdar. Similarly, the Serampur Colliery was a part of erstwhile Serampur Estate and was formerly held by the East India Railway Company under a perpetual lease which vested in the Secretary of State for India in council by virtue of Eat India R...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »