Jharkhand Court April 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.
Shiekh SamsuddIn and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR11(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer-tiorart quashing the order dated 16.8.1994, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 199 of 1992-93 and also the order dated 10.7.1992, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in SC Case No. 154 of 1982-83, whereby the order of settlement of the lands under reference in this case, which were settled by the respondent-Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtaran in favour of the petitioners were cancelled.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the Jamabandi Raiyats of Village Bara Rampur No. 5, Police Station-Nala, Sub- Division, Jamtara, District-Dumka and the Jarjiabandi bearing No. 72 of the said village stands recorded in the name of the petitioners' grand-father Yadav All. The 'petitioners are in cultivating possession over the land bearing plot Nos. 475, 476, 478 and 480. The land within Plot No. 501, w...
Kohinoor Steel (P) Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR94(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. When the case is taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner informed that they have already set up their industry and they have commenced production since April 2006. They applied for mining lease of iron ore in the year 2005-2006. Iron-ore is the essential raw material for the purpose of the petitioner's steel industry. However, the respondents have not taken any decision even after lapse of more than two years.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has filed several applications for different Blocks. Applications are still under consideration. One of the petitioner's applications has been disposed of by the Hearing Committee by recommending settlement of Tatiburu Block in favour of the petitioner and one M/s. Adhunik Alloys and Power Ltd., jointly.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the statements made in paragraph 5(E) of the supplementary counter-affidavit where...
Kamal Kant Prasad Sinha, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR603(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. These writ petitions as Public Interest Litigation have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for striking down the various Constitutional Amendment Acts, (i) Constitution (Eight Amendment) Act, 1959, (ii) Constitution (Twenty Third Amendment) Act, 1969, (iii) Constitution (Forty Fifth Amendment) Act, 1980, (iv) Constitution (Sixty Second Amendment) Act, 1989 and (v) Constitution (Seventy Ninth Amendment) Act, 1999, as ultra vires of the original Article 334 of the Constitution of India as well as Articles 330, 331, 332 and 333 of the Constitution of India as ultra vires of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.2. The main ground on the basis of which prayer has been made is as follows:(A) These constitutional amendments are framing reservations for the last 60 years, whereby promoting fissiparous tendencies among the citizens of India. The continuation of reservation in the matter of representation of the Scheduled Castes and...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR610(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO), the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition seeking for the three reliefs:(i) For declaration that demand and realization of surcharge over tern porary registration fee of motor vehicle (Chassis) through the notification dated 7.10.1996 are beyond the competence of the State Government as there is no power conferred either in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or in the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1982.(ii) For further declaration that the surcharge cannot be realized on the temporary registration fee of the chassis through the notification dated 7.10.1996 as it makes addition in Rule 74 of Rules which relates to Chapter V of the Act and not Chapter IV of the Act containing Section 43 of the Act, 1988.(iii) For refund of the surcharge already paid by the petitioner.2. The background of the facts in this case are as follows:(i) The petitioner is a manufacturer of Chassis at Jamshedpur. The Chassis/ve...
iisco Khadan Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secret ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR622(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. This writ petition, as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the IISCO Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, praying for the quashing of the order dated 29.8.2005 and 21.9.2005 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment shifting two officers working as Assistant Labour Commissioner from Dhanbad Region to another Region and seeking for the direction to the respondents not to abolish the said two posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner at Dhanbad.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a Union, which has been indulging itself for betterment of the workmen under the IISCO and also for the interest of public at large. In 1947, the Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner was set up in Dhanbad Region and since then five Assistant Labour Commissioners have been working in the said Region. In Dhanbad Region, itself, there are more than 5 lakh workmen. Therefore, since 1947, Central Gover...
Bokaro Roller Flour Mill Etc. Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR507(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since these appeals arose out of the common judgment passed in W.P.C. No. 4386 of 2002 and W.P.C. No. 885 of 2007 both dated 19.4.2007, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In L.P.A. No. 227 of 2007, the appellant-Bokaro Roller Flour Mill have challenged that part of the judgment dated 19.4.2007 passed in W.P.C. No. 885 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge observed that petitioner will not be entitled to raise any claim on account of deposit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs which was deposited by the petitioner under 2004 One Time Settlement application (in short 'O.T.S. application').3. In L.P.A. No. 230 of 2007, the appellant-Bihar State Financial Corporation, is aggrieved by the same judgment dated 19.4.2007 passed in W.P.C. No. 885 of 2007 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Corporation to adjust Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner as condition of stay order passed in...
Birla Institute of Technology Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR530(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Birla Institute of Technology is the appellant herein, which is a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Act.2. Dr. Kailash Vihari who was working as Assistant Professor in the Institute, got superannuated. Thereafter he filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, i.e., the 3rd respondent, claiming Gratuity. The third respondent by the order dated 7.9.2002 allowed the application. Being aggrieved, the Institute filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Labour, Training and Employment, Government of Jharkhand, the 2nd respondent, who, in turn, dismissed the same. Thereupon, the Institute filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge, who, in turn, dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal has been filed in the Letters Patent Jurisdiction of this Court.3. The factual background relating to filing of the present appeal is given hereunder:(i) The appellant is a deemed University. Dr. Kailash...
Pachchu @ Pachua @ Jai Narayan Mahto @ Narayan @ Pachu Kumar Mahto Vs. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR523(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Pachchu @ Pachua @ Jainarayan Mahto @ Narayan @ Pachu Kumar Mahto against the judgment and order of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat dated 4.12.2007 in S.T.No. 378 of 2006 by which the appellant has been found held guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. In the present appeal main point agitated before us at present is that the appellant having claimed to be below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence has been dealt with illegally under the normal provisions of trial along with one Nageshwar Mahto. It has been asserted that the age of the appellant was apparently below 18 years which fact was brought before the trial Court vide application (Annexure-1) dated 6.2.2007 forwarded by the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Tenughat to the Court concerned, praying there into take steps for his production before the juvenile justice board for enquiry. However the le...
Durga Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR505(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to grant monthly pension to him under Freedom Fighters Pensionary Scheme, 1980 on the ground that he took part in freedom movement in 1942.2. It is submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, that though records of the police case, in which petitioner was imprisoned, are not available, but the companion of the petitioner filed affidavit that petitioner was also one of the freedom fighters, and moreover everybody addresses/recognizes him a freedom fighter. He relied on paragraph 8 of the judgment reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2-Mukund-Lal Bhandari v. Union of India.3. Admittedly, the pension scheme came into force in 1972, which was refrained in 1980 and then in 1985.4. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to the family pension as per the original scheme of 1972 itself but it appears that he made an application for the first time sometimes in the year 1996, which ...
Faiz Murtaza Ali Vs. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR512(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Faiz Murtaza All has filed a Caveat under Rules 126 and 127 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, seeking leave to contest the probate proceedings pending. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 4.1.2008, dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner-appellant has no caveatable interest. This is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has not properly considered Section 88 of the Mahomedan Law and ultimately he has given a wrong finding that the petitioner has no caveatable interest. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the appellant being the son of the brother of the mother of the testatrix is entitled to inherit the estate of the mother of the testatrix since the testatrix predeceased her mother and there is no one under category I and the appellant comes under category II and as such, he has interest in the proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »