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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR521(Jhr)]
1. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the President of the State Commission has not participated in its proceedings, the order passed by the Commission is not valid.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Section 14(2-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), would submit that every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section(1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted tile proceedings and that similarly Section 18 of the Act, which deals with procedure applicable to State Commission, provides that the provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act have to be invoked, while the case is being disposed of by the State Commission.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the District Forum consisting of its President and Members has given the verdict with reference to the award, the State Commission only consisting of its Members ha...
Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR579(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the State.2. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 409/419/420/ 467/468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehension of his arrest in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2006.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that that earlier a case was lodged against the petitioner as well as other persons, alleging therein that the petitioner being State Leprosy Eradication Officer transferred those 13 persons, who had never been validly appointed, to Latehar where they withdrew the money from the State Exchequer and the said case was registered as Mandar PS Case No. 27 of 2006 in which case the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, but subsequently the instant case was filed putting some allegations with only difference that number of persons, who were illegally transferre...
Murari Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR519(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction on the respondents to release the earnest/security deposit made by him in connection with Package No. JH-1401 under the Prime Minister Rural Road Construction Policy, regarding construction of road from Ajmar to Kui/via/Pokhari/Dumari.2. It has been stated that the petitioner after allotment of the work was proceeding for executing the same, but the extremist organisation stopped the work at the instance of Nuxal outfit. The petitioner informed the same to the executive engineer by letter dated 22nd February, 2003, expressing the difficulty in view of regular threat and disruption of the work at the hands of Nuxalite/anti social elements, but nothing was done. The petitioner, thereafter, demanded security money/earnest money, as he was prevented to complete the work by Nuxalite/anti social elements, but instead of releasing the earnest money to the petitioner, the respondents rescinded the...
Hari Lal Vs. Jagdish Giri and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR109]; [2008(3)JCR130(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ811Jhar
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.I.A. No. 3264 of 20071. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for stay of the proceeding, whereby the petitioner has been forced to pay a sum of Rs. 92,092/-.2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the said impugned order dated 26.4.1996 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barhi, District-Hazaribagh in M.W. Case No. 2 of 1994, which was upheld by the Additional Collector in M.W. Appeal No. 3 of 1996 dated 22.11.1999. The petitioner has assailed the said impugned orders mainly on the ground that the authorities had no jurisdiction and the proceeding in which the order was passed is time barred. It has been stated that though the said orders are illegal and without jurisdiction, still the respondents are proceeding to recover the said amount during pendency of the writ petition.3. This interlocutory application has been contested by the respondents. It has been stated, inter alia, that the Sub-divisional Magistrate is an a...
Narayan Chandra Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR794]; [2008(3)JCR20(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the arrears of his retiral benefits such as final pension, the amount of leave encashment and the arrears of other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner with statutory interest. It has been stated that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Headmaster from Primary School, Simalkaunda, Kundhait Circle, Jamtara. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted all his papers for sanction of pension and other benefits. But in spite of submissions of all the requisite papers, final pension has not been paid to him. The amount of leave encashment was also not paid to the petitioner. He filed several representations, but the same was also not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition. After hearing the parties, by order dated 5.11.2007 this Court had passed a specific order directing the District Superintendent of Educatio...
Basudeo Rai and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR98(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Rev. Misc. Revision No. 18 of 2006-2007.It is submitted by Mr. Shivnath, appearing for the petitioners, that the Amin's report said to be containing the list of Plots marked as Mark A and Mark B along with map was produced on behalf of the respondents 5 to 17 only before the Commissioner. He further submitted that actually on 14.11.2006. the case was fixed for hearing on stay matter but it was heard on merits and therefore petitioners were not given chance to reply to the said document.3. Mr. Deo, appearing for the respondents 5 to 17, supported the impugned order.4. It appears that on 14.11.2006, while hearing stay matter petitioners prayed for time but on insistence they participated in the hearing.5. In the circumstances, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. ...
Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR128(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 17th May, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby a sum of Rs. 18,430/- (rupees eighteen thousand four hundred thirty) was sought to be recovered from the death-cum-retiral benefits payable to the petitioner after the death of her husband.2. It has been stated that the petitioner's husband retired from the post of Panchayat Sewak under Katkamsandi Block, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31st January, 1997. After his retirement, an enquiry was initiated, alleging the charge of defalcation during his service period. The Enquiry Officer was appointed. However, before completion of the enquiry, the petitioner's husband died. After the death of her husband, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and suddenly the impugned order was passed, holding the petitioner's husband liable for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,430/- (rupees eighteen thousand four hu...
Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR783]; [2008(3)JCR95(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ68Jhar
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 7.10.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur.2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication':Whether the termination of services of Sri Niranjan Singh, operator, Ticket No. 3335/04495/2 by the management of M/s. Telco Ltd., Jamshedpur is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?3. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, could not challenge the findings on merits. However, he submitted that the management had discretion to inflict lesser punishment but harsh punishment of dismissal has been inflicted at the fag end of the service of the petitioner for the alleged theft of property of the Company worth only Rs. 400/-. He further submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration.4. On gong through the award, it appears that the charge of theft of the Company's property has been conclusively proved agains...
Buttan Mahto Vs. the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR388(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 26.7.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 7 of 2004.3. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication:Whether to write 24 years age by cutting the written age 22 years on the date of joining dated 25.2.1967 in Personal Data Form of Sri Buttan Mahto, Khalasi, Staff No. 104068, CED Department, by the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?4. The Labour Court found that there were typing mistakes in the Personal Data Form such as petitioner's date of birth was typed as 10.1.1967 though he joined on 25.2.1967. Similarly the age 22 was incorrectly typed in place of 24 years, as the petitioner himself had presented he filled up attestation form with his signature and date dully attested by a Gazetted Officer in which he clearly declared his date of birth a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›