Jharkhand Court July 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.
Susan Das Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR139(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is that though he raised a grievance regarding the wrong entry of date of birth in the service records long before, but till date there has been no determination or assessment of his age. The petitioner's objection regarding the wrong entry was to be decided by the authority, which has been prescribed in the Instruction No. 76 of the Implementation Instruction but the same has not been done. The petitioner was not referred to Medical Board, as per the procedure prescribed for determining the age of an illiterate employee. The respondents have dealt the said objection in perfunctory way and without following the due provisions have rejected the petitioner's claim. It has been stated that respondents are bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the Implementation Instruction. Rejection of the petitioner's grievance contrary to that is arbitrary and illegal.2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Runiya Binha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR456(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the appellant.2. This time barred appeal was filed on 16.6.2006. The appeal was barred by 55 days. After memo of appeal was filed, defect was pointed out including limitation. There after the case was listed on different dates i.e. on 18.7.2006, 30.4.2007. 20,11.2007. 4.2.2008 and 31.3.2008 for removing all the defects including filing of limitation petition. When defects were not removed, finally the appeal was listed before the Bench on 20.6.2008. On that day the Division Bench passed the following order:20.6.2008. - Time till 23.6.2008. as prayed for, is allowed for filing limitation petition. It is made clear that the period of limitation for the purpose of calculating the delay in filing this appeal shall be taken into account from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of filing of limitation petition.3. The limitation petition was ultimately filed on 23.6.2008. In the light of the aforesaid order, the Stamp Reporter gave further report that ...
Lachhu Munda Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR601(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act against the order dated 6.3.2008 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Khunti PS Case No. 10 of 2007 was dismissed and his prayer for bail was rejected.2. The petitioner is accused for offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and since he was assessed to be a juvenile on the date of the offence, he was forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board and was remanded to the remand Home pending enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board.3. Prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board against which the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Court which was also rejected.4. Learned Counsel submits that the prayer for bail has been rej...
Jai Prakash Mahto @ Guddu Mahto Vs. Ccl and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR137(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. PO/GDA/FB/9.3.2/2002/1198 dated 12.9.2002, whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to provide employment to him on compassionate ground.2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the son of late Jai Deo Mahto, who was working under the respondents as permanent Mazdoor, died in harness on 21.11.1999. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time. It has been stated that the petitioner's alias name is 'Guddu Mahto' and the petitioner's father had shown him as 'Guddu Mahto' in the service record. The respondents did not consider the same and by the impugned order, they have rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the service record does not show the petitioner as the son of late Jai Deo Mahto and as such, he is not entitled...
Dr. (Mrs.) Vanmala Chaudhary Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through the Se ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2461; [2008(4)JCR76(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioner is seeking direction upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short 'J.P.S.C.') to recommend and grant promotion to her on the post of Professor under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme with effect from 9.3.1988 as recommended by the Vinoba Bhave University (for short 'University').3. It is unfortunate that the matter of time bound promotion of the petitioner is hanging since 1987. After a long delay, University sent all the papers of the petitioner to J.P.S.C. under letter dated 21.11.2005. Then a frivolous objection was taken by J.P.S.C. that since two recommendations dated 21.11.2005 and 7.4.2006 were received from University, no action was taken. University then clarified that a letter dated 6.6.2006 was sent to J.P.S.C. clarifying that the subsequent recommendation dated 7.4.2006 was superfluous; and J.P.S.C. can act on the basis of the recommendation dated 21.11.2005. Accordingly, J.P.S.C. was directed ...
Smt. Karuna Chatterjee and Prity Chokarborty Vs. Rakesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2464; [2008(3)JCR454(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, Acting C.J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants-petitioners is directed against the order dated 03.3.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge-III, Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 09 of 2003 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-respondents filed Eviction Suit No. 32 of 1994 for a decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises. The plaintiffs case is that he purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 12.7.1993 and became the owner of the said property. The defendants-petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed title in themselves. The defendants' case is that a separate suit was filed by them being Title Suit No. 49 of 1994 against the plaintiff for declaration ...
Aswani Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR459(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect, as pointed out by the office, is not on the part of the petitioner but the defect is in the order of the lower appellate court wherein the date of the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board has wrongly been recorded as 17.05.2008 instead of 17.03.2008. Learned Counsel prays that the defect may be ignored.2. Considering the facts explained, the defect is ignored.3. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 04.06.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2008 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi refusing the petitioner's prayer for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, was dismissed.4. The petitioner was arrested for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(A), 26 and...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR35]; [2008(4)JCR79(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 16th September, 2006 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner's application before the learned Industrial Tribunal, praying to drop the proceeding of Ref. Case No. 2 of 2003, has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the entire Ref. Case No. 2 of 2003.2. The concerned workmen were the employees of Tata Oil Mills Company Limited, Jasidih (for short TOMCO). There was settlement between the Management and the workmen of TOMCO, regarding their pay scale and other benefits, on 5th June, 1987. The settlement was for three years to end by 4th June, 1990. TOMCO Employees Union terminated the settlement by letter dated 2nd April, 1990 during the continuation of the period of settlement. They placed demands for revision of pay scale etc., which was covered by the said settlement. The demand was in contravention of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The production ...
Sitaram Tanty Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR591(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.5.2000 passed by Sri Ram Prabodh Singh, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees two thousand and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that a panchayat was convened comprising of a few persons of the village as members of the panchayat for settling a land dispute between the appellant and his brother Bahadur Tanti. The members of the panchayat proceeded to...
Chandra Mohan Bhandari Vs. Sido Kanhu Murmu University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR321; [2008(4)JCR525(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Whether the petitioner is the Principal-in-charge or the Respondent No. 5 is the Principal-in-charge of Sidhu Kanhu Memorial College, Maheshpur Raj, District Pakur (hereinafter to be referred as the 'College') is an old dispute. This writ petition emerged out of the said controversy.2. Sidhu Kanhu Memorial College, Maheshpur Raj, District Pakur (hereinafter to be referred as the 'College') was established in the year 1982. The Sub Divisional Officer and the Local M.L.A. were made President and Secretary, respectively, of the Managing Committee.3. By the said Managing Committee, teachers and non-teaching staffs were appointed on the basis of interview held on several dates, ranging from 1983 to 1993. Pursuant to the letter of the State Government dated 8th February, 1990, the teachers working against first sanctioned post and non-teaching employees against available sanctioned posts were absorbed as per their seniority on the basis of date of joining.4. All th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »