Jharkhand Court April 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.
Ran Vijay Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR330(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed in W.P(S).No. 5486/2004 whereby his writ application has been dismissed. 2. The writ application was filed seeking the following reliefs : (i) For quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Memo No. 889/Estb./dated 15.6.04 (Annexure-15) whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Company Commandant to the Initial post of Nayak when the petitioner was about to retire. (ii) For quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Memo No. 1277/Estb./dated 24.8.04 (Annexure-19) whereby the petitioner's appeal was summarily rejected. (iii) For a direction to the respondents for payment of his salary for the months of July and September 2003 and also for the month of June 2004 including the arrears of enhanced D.A. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the appellant-petitioner was posted as Company Commandant at Garhwa ...
The State of Jharkhand, Through the Executive Engineer, Swarnrekha Mul ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar98; 2006(3)ARBLR307(Jhar); [2006(3)JCR334(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common order dated 24th December, 2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5257 of 2004 and W.P.(C) No. 5292 of 2004 between the same parties. Issues involved in both the appeals are the same and grounded on similar facts. Hence, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The same writ petitioner is the appellant in both these appeals. Two writ petitions were filed in this Court seeking a writ/direction commanding upon the Arbitrator-respondent No. 2 not to proceed with the arbitral proceeding arising out of agreements dated 12.03.1986 and for quashing the entire arbitration proceeding(s) on the ground that reference was made to respondent No. 2-arbitrator in contravention of Clauses 51 and 52 of the agreement and the same is barred by limitation and appointment of the respondent No. 2-arbitrator being in violation and contravention of law, he has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitr...
Debi Lal Mahato Vs. Sri Bharat Mandal and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC720; 2006ACJ2562; [2006(3)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDER1. By the Court.--Notices were issued to respondent No. 6 both in the limitation matter as also in the admission matter. The limitation petition was not opposed by the respondent by filing any rejoinder. Hence, the limitation petition is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. We have herd learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents.3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 24.12.2001 passed by 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraikela in Compensation Case No. 53 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- to the claimants/respondents.4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The claimants filed compensation case No. 53 of 1997 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/- (Rupees five lacs thirty thousand) for the death of the deceased Kashi Nath Mandal who died in a motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that on the relevant date i.e...
Shiv Charan Hansda Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR467(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 20.1.2005 by which petitioner's appointment has been cancelled and his claim for payment of salary has been rejected.2. Petitioner's case is that pursuant to advertisement issued in 1988 for appointment on the vacant post of matric trained teacher in Kanhaidih Mission Primary School in the district of Dumka, the petitioner applied and he was selected by the Managing Committee. The petitioner joined on 24.10.88 as Headmaster of the said school. Petitioner's further case is that his appointment was provisionally approved and, thereafter, he obtained teachers' training course in Primary Teachers Training College, Ghormara, Deoghar and tried to appear in the training examination for the Session 1998-99. In this regard the petitioner also filed a writ petition being WPS No. 6124/2004 which was disposed of on 23.11.2004 with a direction to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka...
Saradindu Banerjee Vs. Sita Banerjee @ Rekha Banerjee
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR244(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.2006 passed in probate Case No. 3/01 by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jamtara whereby the petitioner's petition challenging his jurisdiction has been rejected.2. The petitioner herein is the opposite party in the said probate case in the Court below whereas the respondent is the petitioner. The said respondent filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, [hereinafter referred to as the said Act'], before the learned District Judge, Durnka for grant of probate of the will with regard to the property described In Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' of the plaint. This said applicant was appointed as the sole executrix of the will executed by one late Dr. Jagdish Chandra Banerjee. After creation of judgeshlp of Jamshedpur the said case was transferred to the Court of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur. In the said case the ...
Dr. Ajay Shanker Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR39]; [2006(3)JCR435(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order whereby he has been punished in a departmental proceeding by imposing break in service and recovery of salary on the alleged charges of unauthorized absence.2. The petitioner while posted as Medical Officer at Topchanchi in the year 1996, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner was Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Health Services, Government of Bihar and the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner's case is that the Inquiry Officer after holding full-fledged inquiry submitted its inquiry report holding that the charges have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority in spite of the charges having not been proved passed the impugned order of punishment without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing.3. The entire case of the petitioner rests upon paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition whic...
Dileshwar Matho and ors. Etc. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3562
D.P. Singh, J.1. All the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve imprisonment for seven years and one year respectively by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 1997. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are taken up together for disposal on merit.2. Briefs facts leading to their conviction are that the informant Shatrughan Mahto in the night of 20-9-1996 stated before Bundu Police along with the dead body of his sister's daughter that deceased Sharthi Devi was married with appellant Bhuneshwar Mahto in the month of Baisakh of 1992 according to Hindu custom after giving dowry as per their capacity. However, after sometimes the appellant started asking for colour television, Godrej Almirah and further cash from said Sharthi Devi. According to the informant, these facts were reported to the parents of the deceased. It is further stated that in...
Gilloram Gaurishankar Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation Throug ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR611]; [2006(3)JCR25(Jhr)]; (2006)IIILLJ614Jhar
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.Petitioner has prayed for quashing the demand issued by the recovery Officer (respondent No. 2) for the period January, 1980 to May, 1982.2. Regarding the demand under Section 39(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, (ES. Act for short), it is submitted that Section 39(5) of the Act was inserted by Section 12 of Act 29 of 1989, with effect from October 20, 1989 and therefore, the demand of interest for the period in question i.e. January, 1980 to May, 1982 is without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Das, appearing for the respondents, fairly conceded to this position.3. Regarding the other demands, petitioner's contention is that by letter dated March 16, 1982 (Annexure-1), the Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Patna, informed the petitioner that the provisions of ESI Act were not applicable to it till a notification extending the applicability of the provisions of the ESI Act to the remaining areas of Deoghar is issued and a...
Amar Agarwal and anr. Vs. Mani Lal Majee and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR418(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioners, in this writ application, have prayed for quashing the order dated 26.7.2005, by which the learned court below while rejecting the petitioners application for time has debarred them to file written statement on the ground of expiry of prescribed period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the expiry of the prescribed period under Order VIII Rule 1 cannot itself be a ground for debarring the petitioners from filing written statement, as the said provision has been held to be directory by the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and Ors. : AIR2005SC3304 ), it has been submitted that the same view has taken by the Supreme Court in earlier decision in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. : AIR2005SC2441 . Relying on said decisions of the Supreme Court, learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liab...
Smt. Rosebell Kachhap Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Se ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR231(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.I.A. No. 1438 of 20051. By the amendment petition filed on 18.5.2005, petitioner has prayed also for quashing the order of termination dated 30.10.2001 (Annexure-10). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in substance, the petitioner had challenged the order of termination, but in view of the objection taken by the respondent No. 5, this Amendment Petition was filed. Mr. Singh, objected the prayer for amendment.2. In my opinion, the Amendment should be allowed, as it will not cause any prejudice to any party. Accordingly, the Amendment is allowed by incorporating the prayer made in paragraph-4 of the Amendment Petition, by adding paragraph-1 (D) of the main writ petition.3. LA. No. 1438 of 2005, stands disposed of.W.P. (S) No. 64 of 20044. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 519 of 2001 for a direction to the District Education Officer, Ranchi for payment of arrears/difference of salary, in terms of fixation of pay in the replacement scales. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »