Jharkhand Court February 2009 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.
Kailash Kumar Mandal Vs. the Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR283(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 in spite of attaining the age of superannuation has been allowed to be continued in service by the respondent No. 1 in his office (Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Dhanbad).2. In this regard it was submitted that when the respondent No. 2 committed murder of the father of the petitioner, a case was registered against him under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, he disclosed his age as 60 years on 19.7.2004 in his statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, information was given to the department about the age of the respondent No. 2 and it was questioned as to how he, even after attaining the age of 60 years, is being allowed to be continued in service but when nothing was done in the matter the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as r...
Chandra Bati Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR293(Jhr)]
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the widow of the deceased employee of the respondent, mainly ventilating the grievance that she is not getting the retirement benefits upon death of her husband and upon his retirement.2. I have heard, learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the State mainly submitted that case of the notification bearing No. 1982 dated 20th June, 2002, sizeable amount was required to be recovered from the husband of the present petitioner for any reason whatsoever, this amount was not recovered.3. It appears that husband of the present petitioner retired from service of the State on 30th April, 1993, and he was expired on 23rd September, 2007. It is stated by the counsel for the State that sizeable amount, which is Rs. 4,46,534.60/- (Four Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Five. Hundred Thirty Four and Sixty Paisa) was to be recovered from the husband of the present petitioner and, therefore, she is not entitled to recover amount ...
Md. Tanweer Alam Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR292(Jhr)]
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that there is a revocation of lease which was initially given to the petitioner for approximately about 10 years and when petitioner applied for renewal of the lease which was granted vide order dated 8th June, 2007 (Annexure-2).2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that L.P.A. No. 774 of 2000 and some P.I.L. have been preferred before this Court, but he has not having number of that P.I.Ls. Therefore, as per submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the lease which was renewed by the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 12th May, 2008 (Annexure-3).3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of law whereby the order at Annexure-3 is passed.4. There is no provision under law that whenever any matter is pending before this Court, the lease which is otherwise renewable cannot be renewe...
Mangra Pahan @ Bhola Pahan and anr. Vs. State of Bihar Through the Dep ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR412(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Lohar-daga Revenue Revision No. 350 of 1996 (Annexure-7) whereby he has illegally set aside the order dated 25.6.1996 (Annexure-6) in SAR. Appeal No. 8 R 15 of 1995-96 passed by the respondent No. 3.2. The impugned order has rightly recorded the fact that the owner died issue-less and both the parties are claiming the land in question on the basis of being the recorded tenant agnates and thus there was no transfer of the land in contravention of Section 46 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act or for that matter any other provision including 71-A.3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that even forcible dispossession amounts to transfer. However, here the issue is as to whether such transfer was from tribal to non-tribal. The Revisional Court has also recorded the fact that the L.R.D.C...
Tiwary Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2171
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.7.1998 passed by 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 487 of 1994 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution in short, as per the written report of P.W. 1 Sahdeo Mahto, is that on the date of occurrence i.e. 16.3.1994 at 6 p.m. while he and his wife were irrigating onion crop in their Bari, the appellant (Tiwary Mahto) came there and took the deceased, a small child aged about three months, from informant's wife and thrown him into the well. The informant had tried to rescue the child but he could not survive.3. Information was given to the police and on that basis Angara P.S. Case No. 14 of 1994 dated 17.3.1994 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.4. The police took up investigation of the case and on completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the ap...
Secretary Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Bihar (Now Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar70; [2009(2)JCR370(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 27.7.2007 passed in First Appeal No. 37 of 1997(R) with First Appeal No. 65 of 1997(R), whereby learned Single Judge allowed one of the appeals being F.A. No. 37 of 1997 and enhanced the amount of compensation, whereas F.A. No. 65 of 1997 has been dismissed.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:By notification dated 01.2.1982 published in Hazaribagh District Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government sought to acquire land including 3.97 acres of land of Khata No. 982 of village Jhumaritelaiya P.S. Koderma for construction of Krishi Bazar Samittee. Objections were invited from the owners of the lands. The respondent in possession of 3.97 acres of land of Khata No. 982 filed objection for the release of the acquired lands and in alternative, for payment of compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per katha. However, the land acquisition proceeding commenced and finally award wa...
Sati Engineering and Auto Company Vs. State Bank of India, Rit Branch ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar102; [2009(2)JCR374(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:A) For issuance an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing of letter No. SARC/08-Q9/966 dated 1.12.2008 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 2 has directed the Petitioner to hand over the physical possession of the mortgaged property given as security in the loan account of the Petitioner in as much as the said letter dated 1.12.08 has been issued without issuance of notice under the provision of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.B) For issuance an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the Respondents to unlock the factory premises of the Petitioner's unit which has been forcefully taken over by taking the physical possession by preparing inventory of the movable property and locking the gate of the factory premises on 12.1.09 which has been communicated to the Pe...
Nistar Minz Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR376(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against that part of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1638 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents-State to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment on the post of Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand.2. The writ petitioner, who is respondent No. 3 here, filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the notification dated 10.3.2007 issued by the Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, whereby the present appellant (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition), alleged to be much junior to the writ petitioner, was given additional charge of Director of Agriculture ignoring the seniority and claim of the writ petitioner who is alleged to be on the top of the seniority list. It was alleged by the writ petitioner that undue favour was shown by giving additional charge of Director, Agriculture to the appellant.3. The stand of the Sta...
Sardul Auto Works Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: [2009(2)JCR380(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary. learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed in CWJC No. 1654/2001, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur.3. For better appreciation, the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, is quoted herein below:11.12.2002 Heard Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 6.4.2000 (Annexure 8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, by reason whereof and taking into consideration the charge of habitual absenteeism he held that the punishment of dismissal from service was extremely harsh. Having held so the Labour Court directed reinstatement with back wages but did no...
Binay Prakash Vs. the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Jhar1; 2009(57)BLJR2129
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred mainly ventilating a grievance that the respondents are not giving electricity connection to the petitioner for the premises which has been purchased by the petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed document dated 24.10.2003 under the pretext that predecessor entitle has not paid electricity bill and therefore, new connection to the petitioner is denied. Against this action of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred.2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances, it appears that:(i) That the petitioner has purchased the properties by Registered Sale Deed dated 24.10.2003 from his predecessor-in-title.(ii) It also appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner applied for fresh electricity connection in his own name. Necessary charges for getting reconnection have also been paid to the respondents on 18.11.2006. Despite this, the electricity connection has not been supplie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »