Jharkhand Court February 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.
Balgovind Pradhan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1491; [2008(2)JCR676(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal and D.K. Sinha, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.11.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1931 of 2007 by which writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.The order dated 1.11.2007 reads as under:Heard the parties.The petitioner was proceeded departmentally. But the enquiry officer did not find him guilty of the charge on the ground that the transfer order was subsequently stayed. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and he issued notice to show-cause to the petitioner. Ultimately, the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur i.e. the disciplinary authority passed an order as contained in Annexure-8 on 18.01.2005 giving specific reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and then after holding the petitioner guilty awarded him punishment. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which has also been dismi...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arpana Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2146; [2008(2)JCR21(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal and D.K. Sinha, JJ.1. This appeal by the appellant -Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.117 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/-.2. The claimants, who are the widow, minor son and daughter have filed the claim case for the death of Surendra Prasad. The deceased while kept his scooter on the left flank of the road and was engaged in natural call, all of a sudden, a trailer came and dashed the deceased and the deceased was crushed and ultimately died3. The claimants' case is that the deceased was 30 years young man and was carried on Masala Grinding and Polly Pack Industries and his monthly earning was of Rs. 6,000/-.4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving of the trailer. According to the learned Counsel, the trailer, as a matter of fact, was par...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR36(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the informant.2. The petitioner is an accused in Kotwali (S. Nagar) P.S. Case No. 684 of 2007 registered under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who happened to be the husband of the deceased though has been suspected to have either committed her murder or forced her to commit suicide but the entire allegation is false and that the son and daughter of the petitioner and also some persons residing in neighbourhood have never stated about the deceased being subjected to torture though they have said that there used to be some bickerings in between the husband and wife and the reason for such bickerings was that the petitioner had invested some money for purchasing the land at his in-laws' place with her mother-in-law and the said land when was sold, petitione...
Bijay Kumar Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR57(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for he complainant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.2. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 406/409/420/465/467/468/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of his arrest in connection with Bandgaon (Karaikella) P.S. Case No. 47 of 2007.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioin Submits that it is the case of the complainant that he had opened an account in the Apna Bank to which the petitioner was the Branch Manager where accused No. 1, Ravi Rai. was supposed to deposit the cheques which he used to collect from the customers but when the complainant knew that the cheques collected by Ravi Rai were never deposited in the Bank, he made inquiry and could know that Ravi Rai has opened one another account in the name of proprietor of M/s. Apex Enterprises on being introduced by the complainant but the complainant ...
Anita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR549(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this C.M.P., the petitioner has prayed for restoration of S.A. No. 583 of 2004, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 30.9.2005.2. It has been stated that there was delay of 23 days in filing C.M.P. and, as such, an application (I.A. No. 3364 of 2007) has been filed praying condonation of delay. In both the C.M.P. and the I.A., grounds are almost similar and they are being heard together with the consent of the parties.3. It has been stated that by order dated 30.9.2005 passed in S.A. No. 583 of 2004, three weeks' peremptory time was allowed for removing the defect(s). Inadvertently, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not note down the peremptory time and, as such, could not comply with the order within the prescribed period.4. Subsequently, when the notice was served by the office, the petitioner came to know that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order. The petitioner thereafter took i...
Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR677(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the appellant through the counsel Mr. Shallendra Kumar Singh challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5800 of 2006.2. This appeal was listed on 21.2.2008. This Court after hearing Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, counsel for the appellant as also the counsel for the respondents dismissed the appeal by passing a reasoned order.3. Order dated 21.2.2008 passed by this Court dismissing the appeal reads as under:Heard the parties.This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 5800 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad.It appears that the following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal:Whether the demand of Sri Surendra Pal Singh S/o Sri Balbir Singh from the management of M.E.C.L., R.C.S. Project, D...
Bali Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR673(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. Sunil Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been working as a driver without any break from 1987 on daily wage against the sanctioned post and there was a recommendation on 26.6.1998 by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division that if work is taken from the petitioner for a long time, he should be paid minimum wages and steps be taken for filling up the post in accordance with law. He relied on paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. : (2006)IILLJ722SC , which reads as follow:One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention...
Manoj Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2150; [2008(2)JCR669(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. The petitioners' grievance is that the order of the petitioners has not been finally bifurcated.2. Mr. Pathak, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were asked to give option for their cadre division. A tentative list was prepared by which the petitioners were posted in the State of Jharkhand till final allocation but final allocation has not been done as yet and without such allocation, the respondents authorities are taking steps transferring the petitioners from the department of Wireless to other wings of the Home department.3. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the final allocation of the Constable/Havildar is pending Regarding transfer of the petitioners pending final allocation, it is said that there is no bar for transferring the petitioners, as they belong to general cadre of Constable/Havildar and, as such, they can be transformed from Wireless to other wings of the department.4. This position has ...
Shipendra Prasad Singh @ Shipend Singh Vs. Smt. Bina Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR679(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard Mr. Deo, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the respondents.2. Mr. Deo, at the outset, on instruction from petitioner, who is present in the Court, submitted that petitioner is ready to vacate the premises within three months from today and pay the arrears of rent up to January, 2008 and also the current rent from February, 2008 as may be fixed by this Court.3. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the suit for eviction was filed as far back as in the year 1985 and the rent was only Rs. 100/-. However, he submitted that this Court may pass order as it may deem fit and proper.4. Accordingly, on the basis of such undertaking of the petitioner the following order is passed:(i) Petitioner is directed to vacate the premises in question on or before 31st May, 2008.(ii) He will deposit the arrears of rent upto January, 2008 @ Rs. 100/- per month within two weeks from today in the executing Court.(iii) He will also deposit rent from the month o...
Rasid No. 2 Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR34(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, was terminated from service on 28.3.2000. His grievance is that he has not been paid his following legal dues:(i) Gratuity(ii) Leave Encashment(iii) Group Saving Scheme(iv) Wage Board Arrear(v) Subsistence allowance for the suspended period from 20.4.1991 to 28.3.2000.(vi) Statutory interest for delayed payment of CPF, which was made available on 13.9.2004.3. It is stated that the petitioner has already made a representation before the Electrical Executive Engineer-cum-Chairman, Sijua, but uptill now his prayer has not been redressed nor any order has been passed on his representation.4. By filing counter-affidavit it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has been paid CPF amounting to Rs. 92,804/- vide Cheque No. 9,61,395/- d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »