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.
Mukesh R. Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR99(Jhr)]
ORDERD.P. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 As stated the petitioner Mukesh R. Gupta is the Chairman of the Lloyds Finance Ltd. Mumbai. Certain investments were made by the O.P. No. 2 in the company on assurance that the said company will return back principal amount with handsome interest. In the year 1998 to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. O.P. No. 2 could manage this after retirement from his provident fund and other deposits. It is undisputed facts on record that the said finance company could not return the principal amount as well as the interest as promised within time. This lead to filing of the complaint petition No. 1087 of 2001. After enquiry the learned Court below took cognizance on 11.2.2003 in this case and issued summon for appearance of the petitioners as well as others who were activety participating in the affairs of the company.2. Thereafter the present petition is preferred by the accused persons stating therein that the petitioners a...
Pareme Marandi @ Parmeshwar Marandi Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR4(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioner is claiming that he being the legally adopted son of his Aunt (Talwa Manjhian), who was a spinster and died in harness on 27.10.1997, is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner filed writ petition being WP (S) No.5066 of 2001 for the same relief which was disposed of on 8.10.2001 remitting the matter to the respondents to determine such clam. Petitioner filed representation. By the impugned order dated 3.1.2002, the concerned respondent has rejected such claim.3. Mr. Tiwari, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Talwa Manjhian declared the petitioner as one of her dependants in her service records. He further submitted that petitioner has been enjoying all the benefits of a dependant, during the life-time of Talwa Manjhian and all the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner being the nominee/legal heir of the deceased Talwa Manjhian. He further submitted that the Project Officer wrongly rej...
Darkhas Anjum Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR75(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 was selected as Anganbari Sewika of Rajpur Centre in the district of Godda, by issue of letter as contained in Annexure-1 dated 7.12.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that by issue of Annexure-2 dated 7.5.2007 under the signature of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Mahagama her selection as Anganbari Sewika has been cancelled on the ground that she is not a resident of Rajpur rather she is a resident of Babupur. It is stated that the ground for cancellation of her selection is wrong; since she is a resident of village Rajpur. Residential certificate issued to the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Mahagama (Annexure-3) shows that the petitioner is resident of Rajpur. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a representation for redressal of her grievance on 20.5.2007 before the respondent No. 4, b...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR74(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, a Public Constable was departmentally proceeded and thereafter, on the basis of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from the service. The petitioner thereafter filed a statutory appeal before the statutory authority. Since the appeal was not being disposed of, the petitioner moved this Court in WP (S) No. 6703 of 2006 making his grievance that though he has filed appeal against the punishment of dismissal from the service but the same is not being disposed of by the appellate authority. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 15.12.2006 as contained in Annexure-5 directing the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Singhbhum (Kolhan) Region, Chaibasa to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of order.3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the appellate authority, by his order dated 8.1.2006 (Annexure 3) dismissed the appeal filed by the...
Md. Muslim Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR35(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner claims time bound promotion, increments and matriculate trained pay scale.2. According to the petitioner, he became matriculate trained in the year, 1967-69 during the service period from Basic Training School, Simarta. He also entitled for revised pay scale since 1993 as other persons are getting matriculate trained pay scale.3. The stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was suspended by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh vide Memo No. 6161 dated 16.10.1993. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Though the charges were not established, the enquiry officer recommended to severely warn the petitioner to improve the roll strength of the students. The Committee resolved in the meeting held on 27.6.1996 that the petitioner be reinstated and transferred to some other place. It was further resolved that the petitioner will not get anything more than the subsistence allowance du...
Lallan Das Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR39(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioner is seeking direction on the respondents to place his name in the seniority list dated 31.12.1999 as per Memo No. 849/Special Branch, Ranchi dated 19.7.2001 (Annexure-5).3. It is submitted by Mr. M.K. Roy. appearin for the petitioner, that in the seniority list, the petitioner's name was missing. He knew about the same in May, 2001. He made representation. The Super-intendent of Police (Admin.) Special Branch, Jharkhand wrote letter to the Inspector General of Police [Admin.), Bihar, and Patna that the petitioner's name should appear at Serial No. 418- A, above Serial No. 419, Shri Panchanand Singh and, he can be con-firmed in the grade of Inspector of Police from 1.2.1993. It is submitted that on the basis of the tentative cadre bifurcation list dated 13.6.2002, the petitioner was allocated Bihar Cadre and he has joined there. It is submitted that the petitioner has not received any order passed on the said letter 19....
Kalikant Pathak and 7 ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR371(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have not been paid the statutory interest accrued on the arrears of their salary, which was not paid to them for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which was to be credited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioners at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for payment of the interest upon the G.P.F. contribution. The claim of the petitioners is based on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Hare Ram Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.' passed on 30th April 2003 in L.P.A. No. 651/2002 as contained in Annexure-5/1 to this writ petition.3. It is stated by the petitioners that in spite of the fact that they have filed representations before D.S.E., Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Annexures-2 and 4/1), the grievance of the petitioners has not been redressed as yet.4. In this view of the matter, this writ application is being d...
Ram Lochan Jha and 20 ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR384(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have not been paid the statutory interest accrued on the arrears of their salary, which was not paid to them for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which was to be credited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioners at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for payment of the interest upon the G.P.F. contribution. The claim of the petitioners is based on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Hare Ram Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.' passed on 30th April, 2003 in L.P.A. No. 651/2002 as contained in Annexure-3/1 to this writ petition.2. It is stated by the petitioners that in spite of the fact that they have filed representations before D.S.E., Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Annexure-2 series), the grievances of the petitioners have not been redressed as yet.3. In this view of the matter, this writ application is being di...
Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC273; [2008(2)JCR44(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.8.2006. passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 66 of 2005, whereby the petitioner, who was the opposite party in the aforesaid case was directed to pay Maintenance Allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant/opposite party No. 2, herein.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.3. It may be mentioned here that though notice was served upon the opposite party No. 2, as per the office report but she has neither appeared nor has instructed any lawyer to represent him.4. Nevertheless, the hearing of this case has been taken up in presence of the learned Counsel for the respondent-State.5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submits that the learned Court below while passing the order of maintenance, failed to consider the fact that the applicant/opposite party No. 2 has willfully wit...
Sadhu Sharan Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and 6 ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR370(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have not been paid the statutory interest accrued on the arrears of their salary, which was not paid to them for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which was to be credited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioners at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for payment of the interest upon the G.P.F. contribution. The claim of the petitioners is based on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Hare Ram Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. passed on 30th April 2003 in L.P.A. No. 651/2002 as contained in Annexure-5/1 to this writ petition.3. It is stated by the petitioners that in spite of the fact that they have filed representations before D.S.E., Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Annexure-2 series), the grievances of the petitioners have not been redressed as yet.4. In this view of the matter, this writ application is being di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »