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.
Laljee Vs. Central Coal Fields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR511(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for his appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of demise of his father.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner explains that the father of the petitioner was an employee under the respondents and after his death on 24.1.1998, the petitioner filed an application for his compassionate appointment which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation of six months and therefore the application was not entertainable. Learned Counsel explains that according to the earlier Circular of the employer, the period of limitation for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground was six months and the petitioner's application was filed three months after the prescribed period of limitation. However, subsequently by a Circular Issued by the respondents, ...
Jaideo Bhattacharya Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR38(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Maintenance Case No. 108 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards the maintenance of the Opposite Party No. 2 and her child.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the evidences on record adduced by the parties which would categorically indicate that the petitioner's earning is less than Rs. 1,200/- per month. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner explains that although in the impugned order, the learned Court below has discussed the evidences but on assertion as to the earnings of the petitioner, no discussion whatsoever, has been made and the vague and omnibus statement of the opposite party that she had heard that the petitioner earns a ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR38]; [2008(4)JCR43(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the award of compensation passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in W.C. Case No. 13 of 2004, who had been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 1,66,800/- to the claimant-respondent No. 1, who is the claimant and father the of the deceased Binod Kumar, who was discharging the duty as a khalashi on a truck owned by the respondent No. 2, Madhuri Devi and Ramapati Devi. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court also ordered for payment of 12% interest on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the claim, till the date of payment, on the basis of a finding that the deceased Binod Kumar was an employee of the owner of the vehicle f.e., Madhuri Devi and Ramapati Devi.2. The appellant-New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City and it has been contended that the decea...
Md. Mustaffa Vs. the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR310(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for setting aside the Award dated 27.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in reference case No. 23/1998.2. The submission as raised by the petitioner is that he was appointed on 13.12.1965 in the respondent organization. According to him, his age was recorded as 25 years in the descriptive roll as 13.12.1965, according to which the petitioner was due to retire in month of December 98/December 2000.3. The petitioner further submits that he received a communication from the Management whereby he was informed that he was due to retire on 13.12.1995 and accordingly on 22.6.1995 he made a representation to the authority concerned. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 28.9.1995.4. This led to filing of a Conciliation Proceeding and finally the matter was referred to the Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer to adjudicate the dispute with regard to age....
Muni Devi and ors. Vs. Pradip Singh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ253; [2009(2)JCR357(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against the award dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh by which a sum of Rs. 1,69,500/- had been awarded to the claimants by way of compensation on account of the accident caused by a vehicle bearing No. WB-25A-25A-3265. The amount of compensation although was determined by the Tribunal it further ordered that the amount would be payable by the respondent No. 2/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. only to the extent of 50% which would come to Rs. 84,750/- as it was held therein that the liability of the vehicle insured with the respondent No. 2/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was only partial and the vehicle which was driven by the deceased which was Tata Sumo bearing No. HR-261/2239, was also equally liable to share the liability of compensation to the tune of half of the liability that is balance 50%.2. The appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased who are the claim...
Bahadur Dangwar and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR505(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ application petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to make payment of their salary with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from September, 1997 till date and also for a direction to the respondents for revival of the industrial unit for the livelihood of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners now confines the prayer only to the claim for payment of salary to the petitioners for the period as aforesaid.2. It is explained by the Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were employed under respondent No. 3, the Managing Director, Bihar State Tanin Extract Limited which is under the administrative control of the Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Bihar. The employees of the Bihar State Tanin Extract Limited also used to be sent on deputation to various other departments of the State of Bihar. On account of financial constraints and loss in business, the company did not pay salary t...
Tisco (Tube Division) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR501(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. All the five Cr. Misc. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been taken up together, arising out of common question of law and almost on similar facts.2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 Rajesh Prasad, Labour Superintendent-cum-Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had visited in the factory premises of Tube Division of M/s. TISCO Ltd. Jamshedpur on 24.12.2004 and observed that the different contractors were getting the work done by the contract labourers in spite of prohibition of employment of contract labourers in the concerned work vide Notification No. 10/F-1-4050/90 L & E 838 dated 20.12.1991 issued by the Government in the department of Labour Employment and Training under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and thereby the petitioners, who were common in all the five petitions aforesaid, violated the provision of Se...
Ramesh Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR509(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Maintenance Case No. 75 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-per month towards maintenance of his wife namely the Opposite Party No. 2.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.3. The claim for maintenance from the petitioner was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised on 38 years ago and in course of their cohabitation, she gave birth to two children. However, since the petitioner was not providing for her maintenance, she had to take shelter at her parents house. Her further case is that though the matrimonial relation between her and her husband is still subsisting, but the petitioner had entered into a second m...
Binod Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ66; [2008(3)JCR508(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the informant.2. The petitioner in an accused in Sakchi P.S. Case No. 240 of 2007 registered under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal-Code.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when Ashish Dey was murdered by some unknown persons, a case was registered against unknown and since the case was of blind murder, the police started investigating the case on different theories. First, it raised suspicion against the members of an organization called 'MMG' as the deceased had received call whereby the members attached with the said organization had asked for ransom. Simultaneously, it raised suspicion against Amlesh Kumar and Akhilesh Singh said to be renowned criminal of Jamshedpur indulging themselves in all sorts of criminal activities including commission of an offence of extortion and murder as Amlesh Kumar had griev...
Lil Mohan Munda Vs. Arshad HussaIn and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2816; [2008(3)JCR498(Jhr)]
1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant, Lil Mohan Munda, against the order dated 7.6.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 211 of 2005, by which the application filed by the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was rejected.2. The only ground for rejection of the application was on account of discrepancy while recording the number of the vehicle which caused the accident The Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that registration number of the alleged vehicle mentioned in FIR was BR-15P-0151 and in the Fardbayhan also the number was the same i.e. BR-15P-0151, but in the Fardbayan where the name of the accused is mentioned, the number of the bus was mentioned as BR-14P-0151. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the identity of the vehicle is not proved without doubt as to whether the vehicle which caused the accident was BR-14P-151 or it was BR-15P-0151. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »