Jharkhand Court September 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.
Bihar State Housing Board and ors. Vs. Phul Chandra Ram and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR399(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 4th March, 1994 passed in CWJC No. 1984 of 1998R whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners (respondents herein).2. The petitioner-respondents herein, filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking a writ for quashing that portion of the allotment letter (annexure 5) whereby the appellants-Bihar State Housing Board (shortly the Board) fixed the price of the flats as on 30.6.1992 and directed the respondents (appellants herein) to reduce the price of the flats of the weaker section income group (i.e., Janta flats built at Harmoo, Ranchi). The writ petitioners also sought a direction upon the Board to make necessary repairs of the said flats and to execute agreement pursuant to the allotment letters as contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition.3. Petitioners'-respondents' case, inter alia, was that in 1974, 360 Janta flats were constructed ...
Alcast Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR401(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.1995 passed in CWJC No. 2670 of 1995R whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the order dated 4.9.1995 passed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad Electrical Circle, Dhanbad whereby he disposed of the representation filed by the writ petitioner-appellant in compliance of the order and direction passed in CWJC No. 1661 of 1994 and further for a direction upon the respondent-Board for raising fresh bill in accordance with law.3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties and after hearing the counsels for the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that the Electrical Superintending Engineer, while disposing of the representation, considered all the points and has given full reasons as to how he came to the conc...
Ajay Transport Company Vs. the Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR87(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in not paying the promised amount is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and, therefore, they should be directed to pay the promised amount with interest and costs. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. : (2004)3SCC553 .2. Mr. Gulam Mustafa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ Court should not interfere in this contractual matter involving disputed facts, especially when there was an arbitration clause. Moreover, the claim is barred by limitation.3. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, the respondents directed the petitioner to transport coal between 13.10.1993 to 31.1.1994 for a distance longer than what was stipulated in the earlier contract with a clear stipulation that new ra...
Mahabir Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR354(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/08/2006 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, whereby the petitioner, who was a Judicial Officer of the rank of Sub-Judge and who had completed the age of 50 years, was asked to compulsory retire from the service as Sub-Judge with effect from the forenoon of 28/06/2006 under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service, Code in public interest after giving three months salary in lieu of notice.3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Judicial Service on 12/12/1986 as Judicial Magistrate. Vide notification dated 14th August 2002 while he was posted as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar, he was given promotion from the cadre of Munsif to the post of Sub-Judge alongwith the other Judicial Officers. His date of birth is 03/01/1954 and he was to superannuate from service after completion of the age of 60 years and, therefore, he was to continue in servic...
Tata MaIn Hospital Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR174(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, for the following reliefs:(i) For declaration that the supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, X-ray items etc which are supplied by the petitioner to its indoor patients during the course of their treatment is not a transaction which comes within the meaning of 'Sale' as defined under Section 2(t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not taxable under the said Act.(ii) For declaration that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'Dealer' as defined under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not required to be registered as 'Dealer' under the said Act.(iii) To quash the notice dated 31/3/2005 contained in Annexure- 3 to the writ application issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, asking the petitioner to explain as to why an action be not taken against it for not registering itself as registered 'Dealer'.(iv)...
Trf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR353(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of Annexure-10 I.e. the show-cause notice dated 13.12.2006 by the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur asking him to file a show-cause on the points raised in the show-cause notice.3. What it appears that the petitioner, who is the manufacturer of machine and machine parts, falling under Chapter-84 and 85 of the first Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was registered as Service Tax Assessee and it was providing services under the categories of Consulting Engineers services, Commissioning and installation services, repairs and maintenance services, construction services and goods transport agencies services. He allegedly short paid Service Tax amounting to Rs. 12,63,86,088/- and Education Cess amounting to Rs. 17,81,737/-, totaling Rs. 1.2,81,67,825/- by suppressing the correct taxable value and thereby violated the provisi...
Etwaria Devi Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR403(Jhr)]
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 20.9.2006 passed in WPS No. 2540 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking employment on compassionate ground.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:Petitioner's husband, late Arjun Bhuia was serving as a Minor Loader in Angar Pathara colliery and died in harness on 21st December, 1992. The deceased left behind him the appellant-widow, two sons and one daughter. After the death of the deceased application was filed by the appellant for retiral benefits and also for compassionate appointment. The said application was not considered because the respondents doubled the applicant being the widow of the deceased. However, in 2005 the Superintendent of Police, Chatra, after verification, reported that the appellant is genuinely the widow of the deceased. The appellant also produced the succ...
Suresh Pathak Vs. the Chief General Manager, C.C.L. and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR356(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. and Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.2. The appellant herein had preferred the writ petition being WP (S) No. 1345 of 2004 for a direction to the respondents to stop issuing oral orders of transfer, whereby, he has been transferred from Crusher Section (Electricity and Mechanical) to the Pump Section of the Open cast Mines, K.D.H. Project, Khelari.3. According to the appellant, without passing a written order he has been asked to go to work in the underground mines, which is not legal.4. On the other hand, the counsel for respondents, would submit that there was no transfer and the appellant, who was deployed to different section of the same office, unauthorizedly remained absent from duties and with reference to the said charge, departmental enquiry is pending. In the light of the said submission, the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2006 declined to decide the issue, i...
C.i.T. Vs. R.S. Bajwa and Co.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]301ITR333(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR357(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. On the reference application from the side of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance of earlier years in spite of the fact that the return was filed late?2. The facts of the case, in brief, necessary for answering the question are as under:The assessee is a partnership firm. Original statement was completed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the Assessing officer passed revisional order under Section 154 of the Act, withdrawing the allowance of carry forward of depreciation and investment in respect of assessment year 1985-86 on the ground that there was delay in filing the return of income. The Assessing officer took the view that under Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, carry-fo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Binod Kumar and Bros.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR404(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to hold that no tax deduction at source is required where final assessment of the person from whose account such tax deduction at source is applicable results in Nil demand, less demand or a refund?2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:Because of the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source from interest paid to several parties, the assessing officer imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 10000/- for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeal). The appellate authority allowed the appeal in part. The appellate authority assess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »