Jharkhand Court July 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.
Amit Kumar Vs. Sudesh Kumar Mahto
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR732; [2007(4)JCR68(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Hazari filed on behalf of the petitioner to be examined as the first witness in this Election Petition. Case called out.2. At this stage the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Pandey requests that I.A. No. 1388 of 2007 regarding the maintainability of the Election Petition in its present form may be taken up first. With consent of the counsels I.A. No. 1388 of 2007 is taken up for hearing on merit.3. According to this I.A., the present Election Petition was not maintainable mainly on the grounds that the facts brought on record and pleaded by the petitioner do not disclose any corrupt practice has resulted in election of the respondent. It is stressed that all such Election Petitions must discloses on facts pleaded specifically to show that any corrupt practice has been adopted and mere pleading that EVM did not function properly for sometime on 15.2.2005 could not mean that such non functioning of the EVM have resulted in defeat of the petitioner.4. According to S...
Lal Surendra Nath Sahdeo and ors. Vs. Singh Refractories Works and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR91(Jhr)]
ORDER1. These three appeal arose out of common judgment dated 18.4.2007 passed by learned single Judge in WPC No. 4166 of 2006. The original promoter-writ petitioner is the appellant in one appeal, auction purchaser respondent is the appellant in second appeal and the State Financial Corporation is the appellant in third appeal.2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction upon the Bihar State Financial Corporation (in short the Corporation) for giving benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme 2004 for which petitioner said to have applied within the prescribed time with-necessary amount. Petitioner also prayed for quashing the resolution taken by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for the benefit under the Scheme 2004.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.Petitioner is an industrial unit started in 1973. The Corporation sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- out of which Rs. 2,64,000/-was disbursed. In the year 1983...
Usha Alloy Mazdoor Sangh Through Its Vice-president and Vs. State of J ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR768]; [2008(1)JCR106(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. It has been submitted that the impugned order of both the writ petitions is common and in both the writ petitions the petitioners have made common prayer for quashing the order issued under Memo No. 127 dated 27.1.2007 (An-nexure-10) passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Jharkhand, Ranchi.2. The short point taken by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases, is that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel submitted that the said order has been passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has been submitted that the petitioners are the Trade Union and are highly interested in the subject matter of these writ petitions. In fact, the question has been raised for non-holding of elections by the petitioners-Union and in that view, they are highly interested in the matter and are aggrie...
Naresh Kumar Das and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR267(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that other persons whose names appear below in the District Penal have been appointed but the petitioners have not been appointed.3. Mrs. Choudhuri, appearings, for the State submitted that the petitioners' names were sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotangapur Division, Hazaribag along with others but petitioners' name were returned and names of seven Scheduled Tribe candidates were asked for filling up back log vacancies as per the Roaster. She further submitted that while, recommending, the names, the seniority of merit, as per the category, has always been taken into consideration and only the candidates, senior to the petitioners, have been recommended and the names of the petitioners still stands in the waiting list and their names will also be recommended as per the seniority and vacancy. She further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner cannot compe...
Bihar (Now Jharkhand) State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2914; [2007(4)JCR64(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the appellants.2. Reference may be made to the order dated 18.4.2007 which reads as under:The only grievance of the appellants is that by awarding compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the amount paid by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act, has not been deducted although the said interim compensation was received by the claimant-respondent.Issued notice to respondent No. 1 in the admission matter for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed within one week.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order respondent No. 1 although appeared through vakalatnama but no one appears on her behalf.4. As noticed above the only point that falls for consideration is as to whether the amount paid to the respondent-claimants by way of interim compensation, is liable to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal in the main application under Section 166 of the Act. In this regard Section 141 of the Act is...
Bidya Nand Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR19(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of Notification No. 337(S) dated 18th January, 2007 (Annexure-4) issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, so far as it relates to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner, who has been holding the post of Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Sub-Division, Chandil, sought to be posted in Rural Engineering Organisation Department.2. According to the petitioner, he is a Class-II officer. He was appointed as an Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, in the year 1987. The petitioner, in course of his service, was transferred to different places. He was ultimately transferred and posted as Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Sub-Division Chandil, by Notification No. 2574(s) dated 28th June, 2006, after keeping him waiting for posting for two years. Annual transfers were made on the recommendation of the Establi...
Bholi Kumar Bhojgariya Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2912; [2007(4)JCR35(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire confiscation proceeding in Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2007, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby the proceeding has been initiated to confiscate 275 bags of wheat, containing 50 Kg. each, and 8 bags of rice, containing 50 Kg. each.2. Petitioner's case is that he has been doing retail business in food grains for the last several years. He purchased 280 bags of wheat and 20 bags of rice, both containing 50 Kg. each, on 12th March, 2007 from the wholesaler, supported by valid receipt (Annexure-1). The said articles were transported by the truck, bearing Registration No. BR-2A-9589, having valid road permit, were unloaded in the petitioner's godown. Suddenly, on 16th March, 2007, the Block Supply Officer, Barhi, raided the petitioner's godown and seized the bags of wheat and rice in spite of showing receipt of purchase and transportation. The seizure was made under th...
R.G. Gupta and Sons (Jccn) Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR73(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties for final disposal.2. The main question involved in this case is as to whether in view of Clause 3.2 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 ('Regulation' for short), petitioner can be compelled to supply Television Signals to the distributors of T.V. Channels-Cable Operators, with whom there is dispute inter alia with regard to the dues; on the purported ground of Law and Order problem or public interest.3. The relevant facts, in short, are as follows. Petitioner is a multi-system operator. The sixteen interveners are the Cable Operators to whom T.V. Signals were/are used to be provided by the petitioner against payment of the charges. Dispute arose between the petitioner and the interveners over payment of dues. They sought to establish and run their own control room. The interveners approached one MLA, who directed the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn, directed the S.D.O. to look into the ...
Suresh Lal Vs. Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR619(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to rectify his date of birth and consequently date of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the original service record at the time of entering in service, supported by the matriculation certificate, as required under the provisions of Standing Order of Bokaro Steel Plant.2. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 28th June, 1952, which has been mentioned in the matriculation certificate, and the said date of birth was entered in the original service record, medical book issued to the petitioner and in other documents also, such as statement of account showing Employees Superannuation's Benefit Fund. As per the date of birth, the petitioner's date of superannuation was shown as 30th June, 2010, on attaining the age of 58 years, and now after enhancement of the age of superannuation to 60 years, his date of superannuation is 30th June, 2012.3. However, t...
Radhe Raman Naik and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ317
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of this application, petitioner No. 1 has died and as such, the name of petitioner No. 1 be deleted from the cause title of this case. Accordingly, the name of petitioner No. 1 is deleted.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. Despite the personal service of notice, opposite party No. 2 Usha Devi has not chosen to appear to contest the case.4. The prayer in this application is to quash the order dated 19-2-2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 341 of 2002, whereby the cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken ' against the accused persons including the petitioner.5. The main grievance of the petitioner for challenging the order dated 19-2-2003 taking cognizance and for quashing the entire criminal prosecution/proceedings is that even according to the alle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »