Jharkhand Court January 2008 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.
Kumardhubi Metal Casting and Engineering Ltd. Vs. Kumardhubi Karmachar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR615(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. G.M. Mishra submits that TISCO has found some documents as per the list produced today which he can hand-over to the Official Liquidator.In view of the order I intend to pass the TISCO will keep such documents with it.Mr. Vijay Prakash, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, B.S.I.D.C. is present in the Court.2. B.S.I.D.C and TISCO are jointly responsible for compliance of the provisions of Section 454 of the Companies Act. The C.M.D., B.S.I.D.C./ its authorised representative and Vice President (Corporate Services) of T.I.S.C.O./its authorised representative will sit together and see that the provisions of Section 454 of Companies Act is complied within six weeks from today on affidavit. The Official Liquidator will allow them/or their authorised representatives to inspect the documents lying in the factory premises and in his Office at Patna. The B.S.I.D.C and T.I.S.C.O will prepare list of the documents lying in the factory promises. If any document is required...
Dularchand Prasad Mehta Vs. the Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR443(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2002. whereby his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents.3. According to the petitioner, his father Degan Mahto died in harness on 13.8.2000. His elder brother Kauleshwar Mahto was not interested for appointment. Petitioner being his second son applied for compassionate appointment on 6.11.2000, but his claim was rejected wrongly.4. The case of the respondents in short is that the name of petitioner did not appear in any service record of the company and therefore his claim was rightly rejected.5. The original service records of late Degan Mahto were called for. Petitioner's contention is that late Degan Mahto noted his objection on 14.6.1987 in the service excerpt (Form ARG-04) that petitioner was aged about 6 years and his name was left by mistake. But petitioner has not been able to show as to what steps late Degan Mahto took to get petitioner'...
Raghubansh Mani Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR616(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Order of demotion was challenged before the Governor, who is the appellate authority. Even though the appeal was pending, the petitioner-appellant chose to file writ petition challenging the said order on the ground that the principle of Natural Justice had not been followed. The learned Single Judge looked into the matter and found that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner by furnishing the relevant papers and remitted the matter to the authority concerned by setting aside the order of demotion.2. Now the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the proceeding was initiated in the year 1999. concluded in 2000 and the final order passed in 2006 and as such, the delay would make the entire proceeding vitiated.Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, would strenuously contend that the delay, if at all occurred, was due to the laches of the petitioner and there are no laches on the part of the respondents.3. On going throu...
Prawej Ansari Vs. Hatim Ali Ansari and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR597(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.5.2005, passed in M.J.C. Case No. 43/2000 allowing the prayer of the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the petitioner-owner of the vehicle and also the order dated 22.8.2005, passed in the same case refusing to review the said order.3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a copy of the application on which the said order was passed on 4.5.2005 was not served on him and he was not given opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the said application was not maintainable.4. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) appeared in the main claim case and filed written statement but thereafter chose not to appear. The case was fixed for hearing ex parte. He further submitted that a clear finding was recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was being driven by a minor boy. He submitted that as the tribunal inad...
Shri Narayan Chandra Modak Vs. Gupteshwar Tiwari and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR633(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1991 passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in LA Reference Case No. 51/89, whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the reference preferred by the appellant.2. The appellant has claimed compensation for the lands of plot Nos. 403 and 404 of Mauja Alakdiha, khewat Nos. 2 and 2/2 acquired by BCCL on the ground that the lands in question were registered in the name of his grandfather and father by virtue of registered sale deeds of the years 1933 and 1937. The appellant has denied that his uncle Chandrakant Modak had at any time got the land in question in his share by alleged partition dated 2.1.1950. He further asserted that any sale deed executed by Chandra Kant Modak was in effective and invalid and not binding upon him. In this context said Chandrakant Modak has been examined by the appellant as AW 3. However, the learned Court below, while disposing of the reference under Section 30 of the ...
Satish Chandra Dey Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR449a(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23.6.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge. Bokaro in Cr. Rev. No. 135 of 2005 whereby learned Sessions Judge directed the Court below to summon the petitioner to face trial along with other accused though the trial Court had refused to exercise his jurisdiction to summon the petitioner to face the trial.2. It appears that the informant lodged First Information Report alleging therein that while he was coming to village he was accosted in the way by this petitioner and one Uttam Kumar Dey and said Uttam Kumar Dey fired shot at him but he managed to escape from being hit and then Uttam Kumar Dey assaulted him with fists and slaps.3. Upon it, Harla P.S. Case No. 58 of 2002 was instituted under Sections 341/323/324/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner and his son Uttam Kumar Dey. The Inve...
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR449(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.The petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in Sector IV P.S. Case No. 188 of 2007 registered under Sections 420/406/409/467/468/471/472/473/474/120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of (he prosecution that Parmeshwar Gupta applied for grant of house building loan, his application as well as documents supplied therewith were sent to one Mantu Sharma, Advocate for its verification and Mantu Sharma submitted a report wherein he reported that all the documents which had been submitted are genuine and the Parmeshwar Gupta is in possession over the land and on that basis house building loan was sanctioned and subsequently cash credit loan to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs was sanctioned in favour of Parmeshwar Gupta but in course of time it was detected that report submitted by Mantu Sharma was incorrect and, ...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Malti Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR54]; [2008(1)JCR610(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ204Jhar
ORDER1. This inter locutory application has been filed for substituting the legal heirs of respondent No. 2 (one of the claimants) as mentioned in paragraph-5 of the application, saying that the said respondent No. 2 expired on 27.12.2003.2. It is submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 (owners of the vehicle) did not appear in the Court below.Heard.3. On being satisfied with the grounds shown in the application, the prayer for substitution is allowed.4. The heirs of deceased respondent No. 2, details whereof are mentioned in paragraph-5 of the application are allowed to be substituted in his place.M.A. No. 399 of 2003:5. Heard Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, on merits at length.6. After going through the order dated 30.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 3 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), we find that the tribunal has considered the materials place on the records by the parties and ha...
Madan Oraon Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR627(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on the petition for condonation of delay and also on merits of the appeal.I.A. No. 1826 of 2007 has been filed for condoning the delay of 245 days in filing this appeal.2. The appellant claimed compassionate appointment in the writ petition. Such claim was declined by the learned Single Judge.3. In paragraph 1 of the limitation petition, the appellant himself has said that he went to Surat to earn his livelihood and he was working in a Cloth Shop and when he came to his residence at Latehar he got information from the Advocate that the writ petition is dismissed and thereafter he filed this appeal. Such ground itself defeats the claim of compassionate appointment. Moreover the statements made in the petition for condoning the delay, are vague and the long delay of 245 days has not been explained satisfactorily.4. Regarding merit, admittedly, appellant's father died in harness on 28.12.1999. In any event, if the appellant has survived for ...
Bela Rani Goswami and anr. Vs. Baneshwar Goswami
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR607(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. IA No. 3419 of 2007 has been filed by the appellants praying for substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of the sole respondent who died on 28.2.2007.IA No. 55 of 2008 has been filed by the appellants explaining the delay in preferring the substitution petition since the appellants learnt about the death of deceased respondent on 22.11.2007 where-after the appellants filed the substitution petition. Learned Counsel further explains that it was-wrongly mentioned due to inadvertence that the petition for substitution was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC though it was intended to be one under Order XXII. Rule 4 and 9, CPC.2. Objecting to the petitions for substitution and condonation of the delay, learned Counsel for the respondents referred to the IA No. 16 of 2008 which has been filed for passing an order of abatement of the appeal on the ground of non substitution of the deceased respondent within the period of limitation. Learned Counsel for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »