Jharkhand Court June 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.
Jivraj Birthuar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR299(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the notification (Annexure-3) as contained in Memo. No. 4167 dated 25.8.2006 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby three increments have been withheld with cumulative effect and that apart, it has also been ordered that the petitioner shall not be posted in the area falling within the working category.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while was posted as Range Officer in the State Trading Division, Gaya, he was served with a letter, contained in Memo No. 1887 dated 15.5.1997, communicating therein that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 for the charges contained in the memo of the imputation of charges and was asked to submit his reply within four weeks and the charges, whic...
Md. Mustafa Quraishi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR284(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein prayers have been made for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue licence to the petitioners for selling beef; to allow the petitioners to slaughter the animals either under Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act or under the provisions of Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act; to allow the petitioners to deal in the sale and purchase of Animals in the Haat/Bazaar under the provision of Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act and further for issuance of appropriate writ of quashing the notice dated 12.4.2006 issued by Special Officer, Gumla Municipality restraining the petitioners from doing business of beef.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and their ancestors either had been dealing in the trade of beef or have been selling and purchasing the animals from the Haat, for which ...
Bharat Rubber Regenerating Co. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Co ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2749; [2008(4)JCR70(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24th August, 2007 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called as 'E.P.F. Act'). By the said order, the petitioner has been ordered to pay Rs. 10,05,467/- as penal damages and Rs. 3,48,763/- towards interest.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said order as also the order dated 18th September, 2007, issued by the Respondent No. 8 under the purported provisions of Section 8(F) of the E.P.F. Act, whereby the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 13,54,230/- on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner's account, with the said bank has been attached.3. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the commercial production of its finished goods i.e. reclaimed rubber, since the year 1975.4. The petitioner-company is an establishment....
Manshu Mahto @ Nepal Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR400(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order impugned dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 96 of 2004 whereby the learned Principal Judge while allowing the petition filed on behalf of the O.P. No 2 in a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC enhanced the amount of maintenance suo motu without consent of the petitioner and beyond the scope of relief as sought for.2. Short fact of the case was that the O.P. No. 2 Achho Devi admitted to be the wife of the petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC demanding monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- from the petitioner. Though it was admitted by the petitioner husband in respect of a criminal case in which both the parties entered into compromise in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1994 with certain terms and conditions laid down in the compromise petition and the same was disposed of by the 1st Addition...
indra Narayan Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR652(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties at length.2. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceeding and punishing the opposite parties for non-compliance of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in WP (S) No. 2191 of 2006 and also the order dated 15.1.2008 passed in this contempt case; and for directing the opposite parties to recall the order dated 18.3.2008 punishing the petitioner with compulsory retirement (Annexure-7); and thereafter grant him promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with due date.He further submitted that the said order of punishment dated 18.3.2008, and on that basis, not granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer, inspite of the recommendation of the opposite party No. 2, amounts to circumventing the said orders passed by this Court. He further submitted that the charges, said to have been proved against the petitioner, were n...
Kundan Herenj Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation Through Administrator
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR307(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioner is claiming for compassionate appointment against the death of his mother, namely, Jyoti Khalko, who is said to have died on 9.8.1998.3. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner's father applied for compassionate appointment while he was working in a private firm in 1991, but no order was passed thereon. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner applied for his compassionate appointment on 23.1.2003 on which a letter was issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi to the effect that he has applied beyond time, and if he had applied within time, a copy thereof should be made available. Thereafter on 5.4.2003, the petitioner was asked to furnish certain documents, which was also submitted by him, but no order has been passed by the respondent on such application as yet.4. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent cannot be directed to consider the petitioner's case on compassionate grou...
Hari Narayan Mishra Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR304(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In view of the nature of dispute and claim made in this writ application, it is being disposed of at this stage itself with the consent of the parties.3. The petitioner has moved this Court earlier in W.P. (C) No. 1905 of 2005 seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of compensation for the lands acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 on the ground that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondents C.C.L. and they were using the same but the compensation was not paid to him.4. This Court by order dated 28.4.2005 disposed of the said Writ Petition by, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 4 the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Dhori Area, Bokaro along with all the documents of title and possession and other certificates and the General Manager was directed to consider the representation of the pet...
Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR58(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. By filing writ petition being WP (S) No. 200 of 2002, the petitioner had challenged Hazaribagh District Order No. 1310 dated 19.9.2001 (Annexure-7) by which his services were terminated on the ground that he was illegally appointed. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9.1.2002 by passing the following order:Though the petitioner's appointment was made vide order contained in letter No. 5306 dated 27th September, 1997 because of his bravery, as Constable of Police, but such appointment was not made following any procedure. For the said reason, the respondents have terminated his service, vide letter No. 2705 dated 19th September, 2001, so it requires no interference.However, it will be open to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable, if post is filled up in pursuance of any advertisement, in near future, in accordance with law. While making such appointment, the respondents ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›