Jharkhand Court December 2007 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.
Smt. Pratima Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR343(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Hear the parties finally.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.1.2004 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 90 of 2003 by the learned District Judge, Giridth, on the purported application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act (Trust Act for short) allowing respondent No. 3, Tapbrata Brahmchari, claiming himself to be the Trustee of Bharat Varshiya Brahmo Mandir Congregation, to sell the Trust property to the extent of 8 kathas of land to respondent No. 4.Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 30.8.2005 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2004 by the learned District Judge, Giridih, rejecting her application under Sections 47/48 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (Religious Trust Act for short) as not maintainable.3. Mr. Anil Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted as follows. Petitioner is the wife of grand son of Mr. Amrit Lal Ghosh, who admittedly created the Trust in the year 1914. In the Trust Deed (An...
Jharkhand Small Industries Association and ors. and Uday Pratap Singh ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ387(Jhar); [2008(2)JCR342(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.I.A. Nos. 3239, 3270, 3271, 3273 and 3274 of 2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4991 of 20071. In these interlocutory applications, the applicants claimed to be the persons, in whose favor work order(s) has been issued and in the writ petition, the tender process, whereby, work order has been issued, has been challenged on several grounds.2. According to the applicants, they are interested persons and, as such, their presence in the writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 4991 of 2007] is necessary for complete adjudication of the controversies, involved in the writ petition, and in order to safeguard their interest.3. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, admits that the said applicants are the persons, in whose favor work order(s) have been issued in the tender process, which has been challenged in the writ petition and it has not been denied that the applicants are the interested persons.4. Considering the above, all the above interlocutory applicatio...
Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. Bccl Through the Chief Managing Director and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR232(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the General Manager, Kusunda Area, M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, District-Dhanbad as the respondent No. 6 in this writ petition.2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to take decision regarding the petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment and for payment of monetary compensation from 27.8.1991 and also for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits payable to the petitioner after the death of her husband. It has been stated that earlier the respondents had passed an order sanctioning appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in the year 1991, but due to some objection and litigation by the family members, final order was not passed by the respondents. After the matter was finally decided in Succession Certificate Case No. 99/94 followed by Succession Miscellaneous Case No. 18/97, the petitioner filed representation before the respondents to issue the...
Smt. Punam Kumari Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR406(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Smt. Punam Kumari, the petitioner herein, has filed this contempt application for initiating the proceedings of contempt of court against the opp. parties for non-compliance of the order dated 8.8.2006 passed in W.P.(S] No. 3096/2004.2. In the said order, the following directions have been given:Respondents are required to pass appropriate orders for the period, i.e. 10th July, 2002 till the date of the judgment of the Division Bench on 9th April, 2003, subject to petitioner applying for leave for this period.Let petitioner apply for leave for this period. Respondent will consider her application within a period of two weeks and pass appropriate order in accordance with the stand taken in this writ petition. Respondents are, however, bound to pay the salary to the petitioner from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench in Letter Patent Appeal, which judgment has been implemented by them after a period of eight months.Let respondents release the salar...
Baleshwar Singh Vs. R.K. Srivastava and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR146(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Baleshwar Singh, petitioner herein, has filed this application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of the order dated 9.4. 2003 passed in CWJC No. 771/1998R.2. According to the petitioner, he has been given the pay-scale of Anti-Malaria Supervisor only with effect from 1.1.1986 whereas he is entitled to the same with effect from 1.10,1980 as per the recommendation of the Pay-Revision Committee. He has filed writ petition being CWJC No. 771/1998R and the same was disposed of on 9.4.2003. Thereupon appeal was filed in L.P.A No. 386/2003, which was dismissed on 27.2.2006.3. According to the respondents, earlier the petitioner challenged the order of the Department dated 30.12.1987 regarding grant of pay-scale in CWJC No. 946/1988R. The same was heard by the Division Bench and dismissed on 20.7.1988. That order had attained finality. Thereafter, 4 years later the petitioner filed another writ petition, on the basis of th...
Diwakar Prasad Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR147(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Diwakar Prasad Mahto has filed this contempt application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the opp. parties for non-compliance of the order dated 5.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 7106/1998.2. The petitioner and others, challenging the termination order from the post of case III and, IV, filed writ petition, being CWJC No. 7106/1998, on the ground that holding of their appointment to be illegal is not valid under law. Though the learned Single Judge in the writ petition observed that no relief could be granted, he gave liberty to the petitioners to produce their documents to show that they were issued interview letter, they attended interview and consequently their names were included in the panel and in that event, the authority concerned will recall the order of termination. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows:In the circumstances, while no relief can be granted at this stage, in the interest of justic...
Lakshman Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1370; [2008(2)JCR233(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 15th January, 1998 (Annexure-2), whereby the Respondent No. 5 has raised objection regarding second time bound promotion given to the petitioner as far back as in the year 1939 after several years of his retirement. He has also prayed for quashing the order dated 16th August, 1998 (Annexure-3), whereby the Respondent No. 4 has informed the petitioner regarding recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,479.90 paise from the retiral dues.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that before the said orders, contained in Annexures-2 and 3, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was given first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion by order dated 30th August, 1989 and the promotional benefit was also given till his retirement on 31st January, 1998 without any objection from any authority. After his retirement, the Respondent No....
Meera Devi Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR396(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the arrears of retiral dues payable to her after the death of her husband. It has been stated that the petitioner's husband died in harness in the year 1988. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was entitled to get all the death-cum-retiral benefits of her late husband. But in spite of repeated requests and representations, the amounts such as final pension, revised pension, revised D.C.R, gratuity, 'leave encashment, G.S.S. difference of pension and G.I.S have not been paid to the petitioner.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has been getting pension from the Office of the Electricial Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sahebgang within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) and as such the entire dues are payable by the JSEB in vie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›