Jharkhand Court November 2007 Judgments
Suresh Thakur and ors. Vs. Ira Mitra and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR88(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. As reported by the office, notice by registered post with due acknowledgement was issued on 8th January, 2007 to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but neither A/D nor undelivered registered cover has returned.2. Learned Counsel appearing on be half of the appellants submitted that registered notice was correctly addressed and was duly stamped and that it must have been served on the said respondents.3. Considering the above that the notice was issued by registered post with due acknowledgement as far back as in the month of January, 2007 and till date neither A/D nor undelivered registered cover has been returned, the notice on respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is accepted as valid service.4. In this interlocutory application, the appellants have prayed for expunction of the name of respondent No. 1 and to substitute the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 In her place.5. It has been stated that the respondent No. 1 died on 14th December, 2004 in Kolkata. The appellants came to kn...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Briksh Sao and ors. Vs. Asharfi Pandit and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR645(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.3.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Garhwa dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiffs-appellants under Order XLI, Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree and for re-hearing of the appeal.2. The admitted facts are that Title Suit No. 10 of 1969 filed by the plaintiff-appellants was decreed by the Court of Munsif Garhwa. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondents herein, who were the appellants, filed Title Appeal No. 43 of 1989. The appeal was heard ex parte and by judgment and decree, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. The appellants thereafter filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree and for re-hearing of the appeal. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Devi and ors. Vs. Soma Oraon and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR251(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The appellant was the defendant No. 2.2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the affirmance passed by learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 58 of 1999.3. The plaintiff/respondent No. 2 had filed suit, being Title Suit No. 175 of 1996, claiming 1/3rd share in Schedule 'A' property of the suit. According to the plaintiffs case, the suit property is ancestral and the plaintiff being the co-sharer has got 1/3rd share. The defendant No. 1 is father and defendant No. 2 is brother. He claimed that the suit property was still joint and that the defendant No. 2 was causing disturbance in enjoying the joint property.4. The suit was contested by the respondents, stating, inter alia, that the suit, In the garb, is for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The plaintiff is KATHBETA i.e. son from previous husband of the wife of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has got executed a deed o...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kishor Paul Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR90(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal was admitted and notices were issued to the contesting respondents 2 to 4, but inspite of service of notices, the said contesting respondents have not appeared.2. Heard learned Counsel for the apellant and learned Counsel for the State.3. The writ petitioner-appellant has challenged that part of the judgment and order dated 14.3.2002 passed in CWJC No. 428 of 2001, whereby the learned single Judge, while setting aside the order of termination of the appellant, held that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary of the intervening period, though the periods may be counted for other purposes.4. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellant along with other persons was appointed as Field Officer in the year 1981 on ad hoc basis for a limited period, but subsequently they continued in service. However. services of the petitioner along with others were regularized by the respondent pursuant to office order dated 6.10.1987 and the petitioner continued on the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Pal Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through Deputy Secreta ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR190(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 23.6.2006, passed in Reference Case No. 34/2004 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dharbad.2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication.Whether the demand of Sri Surendra Pal Singh S/o Sri Balbir Singh from the management of M.E.C.L., R.C.S. Project, Dugda Coal Washery for reinstatement with full back wages is legal and justified? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was appointed to the post of Sampling Assistant at Raw Coal Sampling Project of M/s Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises ( the Management for short) on 30.7.1998. He worked with effect from 1.4.1999. All of a sudden, he was stopped from duty with effect from 30.9 2001 in violation of Section 25F of the I. D. Act.4. On the other hand, the case of the Management, in short, is that...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Kumar Singh, Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR89(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to promote the petitioners to Class III posts on the date on which respondents No. 5 to 8 said to be juniors to them were given promotion and for restoration of their seniority in Class III posts with effect from the due dates.2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were appointed in Class IV posts as regular employees whereas respondents No. 5 to 8, who were work charged employees, were regularised after the appointment of the petitioners. He further submitted that on 31.7.1995, adhoc promotion was wrongly given to respondents no. 5 to 8 by the Superintending Engineer, which was doubted by the Chief Engineer and, therefore, opinion was sought from the Personnel Department by letter dated 26.8.1996. As no decision was taken by the respondents, the petitioners made several representations but nothing was done, hence this writ petition was filed.3. Refer...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Nath Jha Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR994]; [2008(1)JCR409(Jhr)]
1. This appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 1544 of 1999(R), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case, No. 6 of 1995.2. The relevant facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant was appointed in 1984 on provisional basis as Library Book Sorter in Yogoda Satasanga Mahavidyalaya and worked up to 1990. Thereafter, appellant left the service. In 1993, the appellant again approached the respondent for giving him appointment which was considered and appellant was appointed for a fixed period as temporary employee. After expiry of the last contract period from 1.11.1993 to 28.2.1994, the appellant was informed that this service is not more required by the respondent. The appellant then raised industrial dispute and ultimately, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Director General, C.S.i.R ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR968; [2008(2)JCR200(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Vijay Kumar, the petitioner herein, who was appointed as Assistant (General) in the Central Mining Research Station in handicapped quota, sent a representation on 20.09.2002 seeking for the promotion as a Section Officer (General) in the reservation seat allotted to handicapped quota. The authorities-respondents rejected the claim by the order dated 20.10.2003 on the ground that the reservation quota for handicapped would not apply in promotions to Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 370 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, in turn, dismissed the same on 14.02.2006. Hence, this writ petition.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has asked for two prayers: (i) To set aside the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application claiming for promotion;(ii) To issue a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotio...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Ram Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR91(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the full pension and arrears thereof payable to him after his retirement.2. It has been stated that the petitioner retired from the post of peon from the office of the District Manager. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'BSFC') Plamau on 29th February, 2000. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa. In the year 1967. he was transferred to the office of the Block Development Officer, Majhiaor Thereafter, he was posted in the office of the District Manager, BSFC, Plamau. Daltonganj on 12 thJuly, 1973 and since then he was working in the said office. The petitioner, after his retirement, was entitled to get his full pen-ion. Bui arbitrarily a consolidated pension of Rs. 40/- per month only has been fixed and is being paid to the petitioner. No reason has been disc...
Tag this Judgment!Jhaboo Mahato and Kartik Mahato Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2511
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. By the impugned judgment dated 7.8.2003 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, both the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 304B/34 of the IPC as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and by order dated 8.8.2003, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years for the offences under Section 304B of the IPC, 5 years for the offences under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act besides fine of Rs. 15,000/- and 6 months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Case against the appellants was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Rasun Mahato (PW8) on 27.1.1994. The just of the charge against the appellants, who were tried along with six others, is that the informant's daughter Jamni Devi was married to the appellant No. 2 Kartik Mahato about 1 and years prior to the date of occurrence. As consideration for the marriage, substantial amount of cash besides gift a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »