Jharkhand Court August 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.
Sapan Kumar Burman and Vs. Rajan Kumar Shrivastab and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2722; [2008(3)JCR735(Jhr)]; (2009)IIILLJ669Jhar
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners in this writ application have challenged the order dated 31.12.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in P.W. Case No. 3 of 2000, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 88,500/- by way of Payent of wages to the Respondent.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the house bearing Holding No. 39 within Ward No. 17 of the Deoghar Municipality, which was acquired by him by way of inheritance, from his mother.Later, he sold the house to the petitioner No. 2. The Respondent No. 1, Rajan Kumar Shrivastav, claiming himself to be employed as an undertaker by the petitioners for looking after and managing the aforesaid Holding of the petitioners at Deoghar, filed a petition before the Labour Court, Deoghar under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on 17.11.2000, contending therein, that he was employed by the petitioners in the year 1995 as a Caretaker, on a sal...
Priyanka, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Babita Shah
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR296(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them including the order dated 7.1.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 75 of 2000, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 15 of 2000, drawn on a compliant petition C/I Case No. 8 of 2000 wherein petitioners were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stand trial under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 Babita Shah was married to the accused Rajesh Kumar Shah on 18.2.1999 at Chaibasa. A sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was spent by her father in her marriage including the cost of the articles and cash. When she came to her matrimonial home after marriage, it was alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners started passing derogat...
Suryanath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR348(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from August, 2007 till January, 2008 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date the petitioner was entitled to till the date of payment, and to pay the current salary which has been withheld by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the concerned site accounts (sthal lekha). Further prayer has been made to declare and hold that the duties of the store keeper is confined only to the custody, preservation and issue of stores under his authority and to keep the required returns relating to them as stipulated in para 285 of the Public Works Department (PWD) Code and that the store keeper is not required to submit the site account (sthal lekha).2. The petitioner is employed as a store keeper since 1994 and he is presently posted as such in the Divisional Stores, Drinking Water and S...
Managing Committee of Tisco Adivasi Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR355(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provision of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act which was engaged doing business such as stone crushing, plying of Mini Bus, carrying muck to its destination through trucks belonging to the Society but during passage of time, all the businesses due to various reasons were closed and presently the Society is engaged in providing credit by way of financial help to its member. Due to aforesaid reason, profit of the Society decreased considerably beyond its expectation, though establishment cost of the Society went on increasing and under these circumstances, Management of the Society thought it proper to reduce the number of the staff of the Society to stem deterioration of the financial condition and therefore, the matter was brought to the knowledge of the General Body of the Society and the General Body in its meeting held on 25.2.2001 having realized the financial crises, approved the proposal of the...
Jaha Ara and ors. Vs. Smt. Uma Lall and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR712(Jhr)]
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.05.2006 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 88 of 2003 by which a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- has been awarded as compensation. In the instant appeal the claimants-appellants claimed enhancement of compensation.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The deceased was driver of Tata 407 truck bearing registration No. JH-02A-9736. The claimants' case was that on the unfateful date accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of one Half Dala Saktiman Vehicle and also due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 Truck. The deceased was aged about 32 years and according to the claimants his monthly income was Rs. 3500/- per month. The vehicle Tata 407 which was being driven by the deceased was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. After the death of the deceased the claimants instead of claiming compensation by appr...
Md. Gulzar Mian @ Gulzar Mian Vs. Zohra Khatoon
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2943
1. This appeal has been placed before this Bench for deciding the maintainability of this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.2. The respondent filed an application before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent. The case of the respondent is that she was earlier married with the elder brother of the appellant and after his pre-mature death she was again solemnized marriage with the appellant in the year 1973 and, thereafter, both started living together. Out of the wedlock three children were born. Respondent's further case is that appellant again contacted second marriage with one Rabiya Khatoon and started neglecting the respondent and her children. The case was contested by the appellant of various grounds. Both oral and documentary evidences were adduced by both the parties. The Family Court after discussing and considering the entire evidences, recorded a finding that appellant is the husband of...
Workmen Umashankar Singh and Forty-four ors. Vs. Management of Indian ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR628(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13th July, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge upholding the order passed by the Labour Court who has been pleased to dismiss the reference initiated for adjudication of the question as to whether the Members of the appellant-union could be treated as workmen so as to claim any payment from the respondent-Management.2. Circumstances giving rise to this appeal indicate that 45 Night Guards had been engaged by the residents of a colony of the Officers discharging duties in the IC1 India Limited. Gomia as there were cases of theft in the area and in order to protect themselves it was resolved by the residents of the Officers of the 1CI India Limited. Gomia that they will engage Night Guards and make payment to them for which certain financial assistance was granted by the Management.3. Admittedly, the payment was not made by the Management of the ICI India Limited and the payment was made by the residents of the colony. It...
Ram Kripal Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR358(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 69,335/- deducted from the retiral benefits/dues of the petitioner and for payment of his promotional pay granted in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 9.8.1999 to 31.1.2002 as well as for a direction to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. One lakh by way of damages and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost on the delayed payment of his retirement dues along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Ranchi Collectorate on 27.5.1963 and he retired from service on 31.1.2002 on the post of Head Assistant.He was granted pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and he got salary in that scale of pay even on the date of his retirement on 31.1.2002. On his retirement he was paid admissible retiral benefits including retirement gratuity, leave encashment for 240 days, admissibl...
Santosh Kumar Das Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2729; [2008(119)FLR243]; [2008(4)JCR345(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14/20th October, 2005 issued by the Project Officer, AKWM Colliery, Keshalpur Colliery, Katrasgarh, (respondent No. 3) whereby the petitioner was informed of his dismissal from service with immediate effect.2. The petitioner was a worker in the colliery under the Project Officer of the colliery (respondent No. 3). The petitioner had absented from duty from 8.7.2005. On the ground of unauthorized absence from duty, a departmental proceeding was initiated after a show cause notice was issued to him by the employer along with charge sheet. In reply to the show cause and proposed charge sheet, the petitioner had replied that he had fallen ill and was under treatment at the hospital. He also produced a medical certificate of the attending doctor. At the enquiry, the plea taken by him was that on account of illness he could not apply for leave in advance, though he had conveyed his ill...
Tata Construction Project Ltd. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR240]; [2008(4)JCR350(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties.2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.09.2001, whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the Prosecution and directed the accused Sudhir Kumar Kochhar to produce the concerned attendance register on the next date fixed in the case.3. Short facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant, who was the Factory Inspector against the accused persons including the petitioner for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. In the complaint it was alleged that against the provision of the Bihar Factories Rule 1956 Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. got a labour employed in construction of Cold Rolling Mill without giving proper facilities to the labourer namely Late Mangal Singh, who died in an accident on 24.09.1998 while discharging his duty and therefore, the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »