Jharkhand Court May 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.
Vyavasayi Sangh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Jhar137
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Whether the land belonging to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, adjoining the Agriculture Market Yard, can be used and leased out for non-agricultural business is the point needs to be answered in this writ petition?2. The brief facts, giving rise to the said controversy between the traders of the Market Yard, Garhwa and the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garhwa (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Market Committee') are as follows:(i) The Market Committee decided to construct 60 shops, facing road side of the Market Yard, Garhwa, to be allotted to the beneficiaries under the Self Finance Scheme for non-agriculture trade. The members of the petitioner, who have got their shops in the Market Yard, Garhwa for business of agriculture produce raised objection by filing their representation before the authorities of the Market Committee and other concerned authorities.(ii) The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Ra...
Daya Shankar Pathak Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2405
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the memo dated 8.11.04 by which a proceedings has been initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for an event taken place in the year 1989-90 and 1997-98 although petitioner stands retired in the year 2000 and proceedings under Rule 43(b) has been initiated on 8.11.04 which is barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (ii) by which proceedings cannot be initiated for an event which has taken place 4 years back from the institution of the proceedings and thus to hold and declare the same as wholly illegal, arbitrary, void ab-initio and wholly without jurisdiction.b. Commanding upon the respondents to immediately pay the amount of Rs. 2,30,954.00 along with interest up to date which has been withheld on account of the pendency of the proceedings of Rule 43(b) which has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›