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.
Laddu Sonar @ Laddu Gopal Swarnkar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR657(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11th May, 2004 (Annexure-13) passed by the Commissioner, North Chota-nagar Division, Hazaribagh, dismissing the revision application. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 24th April, 2003 (Annexure-12) passed by the Additional Collector, dismissing the appeal and also for quashing the order dated 8th December, 2001 (Annexure-11) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, recommending cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner.2. It has been stated that the said orders have been wrongly passed without taking into consideration the provisions of law and relevant facts. It has been stated that the land was originally recorded in the Cadestral Survey Record of Rights in the name of Bideshi Pahan. Two daughters of the recorded tenant had executed a sale deed 15th July, 1938 in the name of one Mostt. Marchaiyo, transferring their interest. Th...
Prem Food (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR311(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 in a purported proceeding under Section 27-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. 1952 directing the Director of the petitioner-Company to appear in person in the enquiry on the next date, failing which the order of warrant of arrest/attachment of accounts shall be passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the said order has been passed on the ground that the representative of the petitioner has been evading the production of records during the proceeding. It has been further stated that all the relevant records have been produced and the said observation is wholly without any basis. It has been further stated that the said order was passed in biased manner and the petitioner apprehends that he shall not get fair and impartial hearing and justice before the said re...
Shanti Devi Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR380(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally. In this writ petition, petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of her deceased husband.2. On 15.2.2007, the following order was passed in this case:Mr. Manoj Tandon, appearing for the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short 'B.S.E.B.') submits that as per the agreement dated 27.12.2003, both the successor Electricity Boards are required to pay the retiral benefits to the employees who have retired from their present territorial jurisdiction of the successor State Electricity Board irrespective of their date of retirement. It is further submitted that as per the said agreement. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short 'J.S.E.B.') is liable to pay the medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner's husband who died on 12.9.1998 while working within the territory, now falling within J.S.E.B. He further submits that accordingly pension and all retiral benefits ...
The Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1095]; [2008(4)JCR309(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 24.8.2005, contained in Annexure-9, issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation for recovery of the contribution for the period from April, 2004 to May, 2005.2. It has been stated that the petitioner has applied for exemption under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Corporation Act on the ground that the petitioner-company is providing better medical and other ancillary benefits to its employees, which is far in excess and better than that offered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under similar situation, exemption had been given to this company as well as other company, namely, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. during pendency of the said application for exemption. The respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation has issued the impugned demand notice for recovery of the contributio...
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Vs. Ajit Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR604(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Govt. Appeal (S.J.) No. 12 of 1989 (R) and Cr. Revision No. 242 of 1989 (R) arise of the same impugned judgment of acquittal, as such, both have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the sixteen respondents, who are all police personnel, chaukidar, and members of home guards, were charged for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g), 120B, 148, 380, 342, 452, 452, 427 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing gang rape on the five ladies of village Pararia and assaulting the villager, wrongfully confining some other villagers of that village and for committing mischief. The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 13.3.1989 acquitted all the accused persons for the charges under Sections 376(2)(g), 120B, 148, 380, 342, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the trial Court has also acquitted Ajit Kumar (Respondent No. 1), Raj Kumar Yadav (Respondent No. 6), Kistu Turi (Respondent No. 11), Mannu Paswan (Res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›