Jharkhand Court February 2008 Judgments
Shayam Bihari Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR18(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The appellants were appointed as paid Managers in the Co-operative Society. Subsequently, they were officiated as PACS Manager. They filed a writ petition for directing or commanding upon the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners, the paid managers of the Co-operative Society from 58 to 60 years at par with the State employees or employees of the Central Co-operative Bank.2. The said application was dismissed by a learned single Judge by order dated 11.7.2006 mainly on the ground that the point raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment in WP (S) No. 814 of 2005, wherein it has been held that the Managers of the Co-operative Society cannot be treated to be Government Employees, and, therefore, superannuation of the employees of the Co-operative Society cannot be fixed to be 60 years3. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.4. The gist of the contentions of the appellants in support of their plea is as ...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Shankar Ojha and ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Election Commission and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR249(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. No election of municipal corporations, municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and other bodies had taken place in the State of Jharkhand for the last 22 years and it was only after the directions of Courts and demand of public when election programmes of the municipal corporations, municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and other bodies have been announced and published in the Gazette, these writ petitions have been filed challenging the vires of various provisions of Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, specially the decision of the State Government and the State Election Commission reserving some of the posts of Mayor, Chairman and Vice-Chair-man of the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and women.2. In W.P. (C) No. 917 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the notification of the State Election Commission dated 28.1.2008 whereby the post of Mayor in Ranchi Municipal Corporation for a woman candidate belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Kapileshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Vigilance
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR127(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34 of 1992, corresponding to Special Case No. 28 of 1992, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2)(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner, though the entire prosecution story is taken to be true. From the allegation, it is clear that this is a case of excess payment and not a case of cheating, forgery or corruption. According to the FIR the petitioner has been alleged to have caused a loss of Rs. 19,797/-. Though the petitioner does not admit the same, he is ready to deposit the said amount if at all it has been alleged that this loss has been caused by him. It has been further submitted that the investigation is...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Singh and anr. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR16(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The appellants, in this appeal, are the petitioners in the writ petition. Having aggrieved over the seniority list dated 26.7.1995 issued by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, by which the respondents 6 to 41 have been shown to be senior to the petitioners, while the petitioners and others have been shown junior to the respondents No. 6 to 41, though they have been promoted to the next higher post Grade 'C on the same day i.e. 20.4.1991, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the single Judge seeking to quash the same. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties and after perusing the records, dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 2.4.2004. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The case of the petitioners and the appellants is as follows:(i) The petitioners were appointed in between 1967 and 1975 in the Mines Cadre.(ii) In 1978, the respondents No. 6 to 41 applied for and were selected for the post of Fitter and Welder etc. in Grade 'D'...
Tag this Judgment!Satsang a Society Registered Under the Societies Registration Act and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR78]; [2008(2)JCR408(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ639Jhar
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Prahlad Tiwary, the respondent herein has filed petition in WC Case No. 1 of 2001 before the learned Labour Court. Deoghar claiming compensation as he is entitled to the compensation as a workman working under the appellant as he met with an accident while performing his duty and sustained injuries as such he is entitled to approach the Labour Court under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act.2. Even before commencement of enquiry, the appellant, 'Satsang' filed an interlocutory application, stating that Satsang is not an industry nor is an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and therefore, on the basis of the preliminary issue the main petition to be dismissed. The said interlocutory application was dismissed by the Labour Court on 19.7.2002, holding that since the question as to whether 'Satsang' comes under the category of industry or not is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence from both sides, as such preliminary issue c...
Tag this Judgment!State Election Commission Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR100(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner-Jharkhand State Election Commission, made a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 2/vividh dated 18.2.2008 issued by the Personnel Administration Reforms & Raj Bhasha Deptt. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi under the direction of the State Government, whereby demand of the Commission for deputing 35 officers of the rank of Joint Secretary as observers has been turned down. A further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate direction upon the State Government to implement the Model Code of Conduct issued by the State Election Commission (in short 'the Commission').2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:As per the constitutional mandate and the direction of Courts the Commission decided to hold elections to the Municipalities which was long due and request and recommendation were made to the Governor of the State. The petitioner-Commission, to ensure free and...
Tag this Judgment!Bindhyachal Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR581(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant has assailed the order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6441 of 2007, whereby the appellant's prayer for quashing the Officer Order of his suspension as contained in Memo No. 6751(S) dated 26.10.2007, issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3, was rejected.2. In his writ petition, the petitioner/appellant had challenged the impugned Office Order on the following grounds:1. that the impugned order of suspension is totally arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in colourable exercise of power.2. that the impugned order of suspension is violative of Rule 3-A(l)(a) of Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 in as much as there was no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner on the date when the order of suspension was issued and neither was any charge framed or served against him, even after lapse of more than one month from the date of suspension.3. that the...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR25(Jhr)]; (2009)ILLJ155Jhar
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether continuance of departmental proceedings pending conclusion in the criminal trial is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate direction restraining the respondents from taking any adverse decision against him till the decision of Cr. Appeal No. 1170 of 2005 in view of the show cause notice issued by the respondents in contemplation of the departmental proceeding.3. The petitioner while working as mazdoor was implicated in a criminal case along with 7 other persons in respect of a dispute of a pond under Sections 147, 148. 149 and 307, IPC. The trial Court convicted the accused persons including the petitioner by judgment dated 29.8.2005. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.S. No. 651 of 2006 for stay of departmental proceeding which was dismissed in terms of order dated 13.4.2006 on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Binay Prakash and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR104(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties at length on maintainability of this appeal as well as on merits.2. This appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act. 1956 against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Company Law Board. Principal Bench, New Delhi (C.L.B. for short) on the petition filed by the appellant, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act for short) being C.A. No. 257 of 2006, in the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Binay Prakash Group for short) under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 being C.P No. 66 of 2006; holding that the disputes cannot be referred to Arbitration. (The parties position before the CLB is mentioned in the cause title of this appeal, for the sake of convenience)3. According to the appellant, the dispute between the parties has to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal as per the agreement, whereas the contention of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (referred as Binay Prakash...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR650(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State-respondent and also the learned Counsel for the Intervener-respondents.2. It appears that initially the petitioner had preferred a writ application, which was numbered as WP (Cr) No. 199 of 2007. The order under challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was the order dated 29.6.2007, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr PC. By order dated 23.8.2007, this Court on considering that the impugned order was the final order under Section 147, Cr PC and being so, it was a revisable order under Section 397 of the Cr PC, this Court had directed the petitioner to convert this writ application into a Revision application. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, the original writ application was converted into a Cr Revision application and numbered as Cr Rev. No. 750 of 2007.3. It has been now brought on record by way of filing a supplementary aff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »