Jharkhand Court November 2006 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.
Diwakar Giri Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR412(Jhr)]
1. Diwakar Giri, the petitioner-appellant, was appointed as a Constable in the year 1996 at Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, he was transferred to (sic) in 1997. He also took training in the year 1999. After bifurcation and on formation of the Jharkhand State, he joined the cadre of police of Jharkhand. When he was working in Jharkhand State, the Superintendent of Police, Muzuffarpur, Bihar, issued a memo dated 28.5.2005 terminating the service of the petitioner. On the basis of the said memo, the S.P., Dhanbad, also passed an order confirming the termination. These two orders were under challenge before the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 7184/2005.2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Muzuffarpur, Bihar, terminating the service of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner was posted under the Superintendent of Police within the territory of Jharkhand and after re-organization of the...
Food Corporation of India Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and Sadhan Kuma ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR418(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The parties agreed for disposal of this writ petition at this stage.2. Heard the parties at length.3. This writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 22.7.2005, passed in Reference Case No. 94 of 1993, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. By order-dated 12.11.1993, the following dispute was referred for adjudication.Whether the action of the District Manager, F.C.I., Ranchi, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Sadhan Kumar Das, Electrician, w.e.f. 1.12.85 without paying him notice pay in lieu of one month notice and retrenchment compensation though he has worked more than 240 days of service in a year prior to date of termination? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?4. The case of respondent No. 2 inter alia was that he was a casual electrician but from 1.1.1986, he was stopped from attending his duty without compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. He claimed for reinstateme...
Vijay Kumar Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR133(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has sought a direction on the respondents to dispose of his representation which has been made praying mutual reallocation of the cadre with his counterpart. It has been stated that after the allocation of cadre, the petitioner and his counterpart who was allocated Jharkhand Cadre made representation for mutual exchange of the cadre before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, but till date no order has been passed and in the meanwhile the petitioner has been ordered to be relieved with effect from 5.11.2006 after handing over the charge. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the similar circumstance the exchange of cadre has been allowed to several employee, but without any reason the said respondent has not disposed of the petitioner's representation till date and the petitioner is still under threat of his release (relieving) by virtue of Notification No. 4595(5) dated 20.10.2006.2. Learn...
Sita Devi and anr. Vs. Shailesh Kumar Sinha and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1272
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In these appeals filed by the same appellant, since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M.A. No. 255 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2005 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby he has held that since main application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) has been finally disposed of, no order need be passed on the application under Section 140 of the Act.3. M.A. No. 250 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and Award Dated 9th September, 2005 passed by the same Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act whereby he has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants.4. One Pramod Pal @ Pramod Bhgat died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 22.5.1993. On the said date the deceased was driving truck-bearing registration no. UHJ-8305. The deceased lost ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Industries
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR513(Jhr)]
1. We have heard the parties. It has been vehemently contended by Dr. J.P.Gupta, counsel appearing for the Central Government, that the order of the appellate authority reducing the penalty is without jurisdiction as Section 11-AC of Central Excise Act (1 of 1944) provides for imposition of penalty equal to the duty, so determined.2. We have heard on this aspect. Both the counsel have cited number of authorities for the purposes of disposing of this appeal. It is suffice to refer two judgments. In the case of Sony India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in : 2004(167)ELT385(SC) , the relevant paragraph is as follows:7. Now the other aspect that has to be considered is whether penalty imposed under Section 11-AC and interest under Section 11-AB was justified in the circumstances that arise in the case. The Commissioner had imposed penalty to an extent of Rs. 2,07,64,870.16 equivalent to the duty that was payable by the appellant. Under Section 11-AC of the Central E...
Sita Devi and anr. Vs. Shailendra Kumar Sinha and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC287; [2006(4)JCR677(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these appeals filed by the same appellant, since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M.A. No. 255 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2005 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby he has held that since main application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) has been finally disposed of, no order need be passed on the application under Section 140 of the Act.3. M.A. No. 250 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and award dated 9th September. 2005 passed by the same Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act whereby he has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants.4. One Pramod Pal @ Pramod Bhgat died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 22.5.1993. On the said date the deceased was driving truck-bearing registration No. UHJ-8305. The deceased lost c...
Ashok Kumar Das and ors. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR879; [2007(1)JCR201(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, C.J.1. The employees of the Bank approached the Tribunal for direction to the Bank to offer them employment: After enquiry the industrial award was passed by the Tribunal giving the relief sought for by the employees. The respondent-Bank filed the writ application seeking for the quashing of the industrial award. The learned single Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties quashed the industrial award and set aside the same holding that the appellants-employees are not entitled for employment and that is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in L.P.A.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-employees mainly contends that the evidence has been properly appreciated by the Tribunal and a correct conclusion has been arrived at by the Tribunal stating that the retrenchment is made not In accordance with law. As such the learned single Judge has not given correct reasoning for setting aside the award. According to the counsel the learned single Jud...
Narayan Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR367(Jhr)]
1. Eight accused persons including these three appellants were tried together for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 302, 302/149, IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Except these three appellants, the rest of the five accused persons were acquitted from all the charges. These three appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for life for the said charges. They were further convicted under Sections 341 and 323, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for six months for the offence under Section 323, IPC whereas SI for one month for the offence under Section 341, IPC. So far the charges under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act are concerned, they were acquitted from the said charge.2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 13.8.1998, Rewali Devi (PW 4) wife of the deceased Chhatradhari Mandal had gone to Dumaria Dhab Tand to see her paddy crops and there she found that in her field, the appellant No....
B.i.F.R., Vs. H.E.C. Ltd. and ors.,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR107(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Reference may be made to the order dated 14.9.2006 which reads as under:An affidavit has been filed by the Union of India stating, inter alia, that in terms of the order dated 13.7.2006, the Central Government has sanctioned conversion of plan loan into equity and waiver of non-plan loan and interest on plan and non-plan loan.It is also stated that so far electricity Board to the tune of Rs. 500 crores is concerned, the settlement shall be made by transferring commensurate amount of land of the company in favour of the State Government and the same is under active consideration.Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that tripartite agreement between the Central Government, State Government and the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. shall be finalized within a short span of time.In the aforesaid premises, the case is adjourned to 2nd November, 2006. By that time, the tripartite agreement must be filed between (before ?) this Court.2. Heard the l...
Kailash Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR563(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The present criminal revision application has been directed against the order impugned passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2004 on 14.7.2005, whereby and whereunder the discharge petition, filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected and the charge was directed to be framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Mining Act.2. The prosecution story in brief is that a coal loaded truck bearing Registration No. BR-23B-4483 was intercepted by the Area Security Officer on the date intervening between 23/24.2.2002 on suspicion. On demand no paper was produced about the transportation of coal by the driver (petitioner No. 1) or the cleaner of the truck. They explained that the relevant papers of transportation of coal by the said truck were lying with the owner of coal Mukesh Kumar. F...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »