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.
Most. Gudaki Devi Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ29; [2008(2)JCR352(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The present Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment/award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 148 of 1998 on 25.8.2006 whereby the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant from the date of filing of the claim case subject to production of her succession certificate before the Claims Tribunal.2. The fact of the case in short was that while the deceased Ganesh Karmali was sitting on a 'chabutra' (Platform), engaged in gossiping with his co-villager Rameshwar Ram by the side of the road near Bharat Metal at Kuju, the offending truck bearing registration No. BPL-5935 dashed him causing injuries on his head as a result of which he instantaneously died at the spot. The co-villager Rameshwar Ram also sustained injuries and in the same sequence an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. BPY-5436 also sustained ...
Prasanna Narayan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR12(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought to challenge the departmental proceeding initiated against her by Memo No 1360 dated 16.3.2007.2. The petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceeding mainly on two grounds.(i) The departmental proceeding has been sought to be initiated on the alleged irregularities which took place in 1993-94. There is in ordinate delay in initiation of the proceeding without any explanation and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the initiation of proceeding after inordinate delay is wholly unfair and unjust and the same is not sustainable.(ii) In the year 1996 a memorandum of charge was served on the petitioner for the same alleged irregularities/allegations. The petitioner had filed her written reply as far back as on 6.7.1996. Thereafter the respondents did not choose to proceed against the petitioner and the matter was dropped. The petitioner was allowed to work as usual and subsequently she was given...
Tata Steel Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR353(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the interlocutory order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 369 of 2007, whereby she has disposed of the stay application filed by the petitioner and ordered for stay of recovery of the demand of Rs. 1,38,33,84,081/- if the petitioner deposits 20% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 27,66,76,816/-.2. The petitioner is manufacturer of iron and steel products having its plant at Jamshedpur. It has various Stockyards/Branch Sales Offices all over the country. For the financial year 2003-2004, returns were filed by the petitioner-company before the Assessing Authority showing the local sales, interstate sales, sales outside State and export sales. The Assessing Authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, passed the assessment order assessing the total tax payable by th...
Anil Kumar Mishra Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR680(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The controversy involved in this case gives rise to the issue whether the appointing authority having taken a decision to impose the penalty of reduction in the grade and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty can subsequently change the decision on the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer and impose the penalty of removal from service, under influence of such advice.2. The petitioner, who had been working as the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patan Branch, was served with a memo dated 17.6.2000, in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, containing articles of charges.3. The petitioner was mainly alleged that : (i) He collected Rs. 78,411/- from fourteen borrowers for crediting to their loan accounts, but he did not deposit the said amount, (ii) He had sanctioned loan to the wives of fourteen defaulters and had taken their thumb impressions, cash was collected by the petitioner, but was not deposited...
Motilal Saw and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR692(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29th January, 2003 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondents and also for quashing the termination order issued by the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad (Annexure-9). The petitioners have further prayed for a direction on the respondents to reinstate them to their original post with full back wages and all consequential benefits.2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially engaged as daily rated employees on Class IV post. They continued to hold the post for a long time. By office order dated 16th May, 1998, the petitioners were engaged as Ward-boy against vacant sanctioned regular posts of Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad (for short PMCH, Dhanbad). Petitioner No. 1 was engaged on 18th July, 1989 on daily wage basis. Petitioner No. 2 on 18th August, 1989 and petitioner No. 3 on 15th March, 1986 were also similarly engaged....
Mrs. Shashi Prabha Chopra and Miss. Monorama Samanta Vs. Presiding Off ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR872]; [2008(2)JCR574(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned Presiding Officer has rejected the complaint petitions filed under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') while deciding the question of maintainability of BSE case Nos. 3/2000 and 4/2000 filed by Mrs. Shashi Prabha Chopra and Miss. Manorama Samanta. The learned Presiding Officer has held that the School is not an 'establishment' within the meaning of said Act and has decided the said preliminary objection holding that the complaint petitions filed by the complainants under Section 26(2) of the said Act are not maintainable.2. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the learned Presiding Officer has not properly considered the issue raised before him, which is a mixed issue of facts and law and wi...
Smt. Sita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR702a(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.1.2001 under which a sum of Rs. 1,72,177/- has been recovered on account of the excess : payment made to the petitioner's husband, as he did not pass Hindi Noting and Darting Examination during his service tenure.2. It is submitted by Mr. Jawahar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband retired from service on 28.2.2001 and thereafter he died on 2.1.2006. It is further submitted that in the subsequent District Order No. 64 of 2005 it was ordered that the said order was wrongly passed as the petitioner's husband had already the said Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. It is further submitted passed that again on 24.11.2005 (Annexure-5) it was ordered that deduction may not be made but in spite of that, the said deduction has been made. It is further submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Padmalochan ...
Prafulla Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR652(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent No. 2 to dispose of his petition filed praying relief under the provisions of Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It has been stated that the lands of the petitioner along with others were acquired for the purpose of establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant. The compensation for acquisition of land was assessed and the petitioner was given very low amount of compensation. Aggrieved by the said low compensation, other similarly situated persons had preferred reference of their cases before the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of compensation for the lands acquired for the same establishment at the same time. In the reference, award was made enhancing the amount of compensation. In view of the said enhanced compensation for the land of the similarly situated persons and the provisions contained under Section 28(A) of the Land Acqu...
Ranjeet Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR253]; [2008(2)JCR359(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners are claiming regularization on the ground that they are working in work charge establishment. In the Full Bench Judgment reported in Ram Prasad Singh and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., it has been, inter alia, held as follows:17. I, therefore, hold that:(i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of the their dates of appointment.But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled....2. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that one similarly situated Tapan Kumar Banerjee filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2733 of 2006 which was disposed of on 21.9.2006 and pursuant thereto order has been passed on 6...
Abid Ali and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR360(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners are claiming regularization on the ground that they are working in work charge establishment. In the Full Bench Judgment reported in Ram Prasad Singh and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., it has been, inter alia, held as follows:17. I, therefore, hold that:(i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment.But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled....2. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that one similarly situated Tapan Kumar Banerjee filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2733 of 2006 which was disposed of on 21.9.2006 and pursuant thereto order has been passed on 6.8.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »