Jharkhand Court July 2009 Judgments
Shri Vasamsetti Vishnu Pothana @ Vasamsetti Appala Raju Vs. Smt. Anasu ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2699
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this Cr. Revision challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order impugned dated 26.7.2008 passed under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005 by which the maintenance amount, which was earlier given to Smt. Anasuya, opposite party herein to the tune of Rs. 350/- per month was enhanced on her petition dated 4.10.2007 to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month directing the petitioner to pay w.e.f. 4.10.2007.2. The fact of the case in short was that the opposite party preferred a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Jamshedpur which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 1988 and the same was allowed in terms of the order dated 24.7.1993 asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 350/- per month since 24.7.1993.3. The opposite party after a long interval preferred a petition under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Bimalendu Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2710; (2010)ILLJ402Jhar
D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.2.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2) in Application No. 36/22/2006.E.6, whereby the petitioner's claim for interest on gratuity amount, has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad (Respondent No. 1) in Case No. PG Appeal / (16).2007, whereby the petitioner's appeal preferred against the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, was dismissed.2. Questions raised in this writ application, are as follows:1. Whether the impugned orders are wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority of law?2. Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for interest due to non-payment of gratuity in time in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Pay...
Tag this Judgment!Nagia Devi Vs. Central Coalfield Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2716
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ananda Sen, for the respondents C.C.L. and Sri Abhay Kumar Mishra for the respondent Insurance Company.2. Petitioner's husband Ram Sewak was employed as an Electrician in the Bhurkunda Colliery under the respondent C.C.L. While on duty, he suffered an accident on 04.04.2000. He was promptly admitted to the Colliery Hospital and thereafter referred to the Gandhinagar Hospital, C.C.L., Ranchi. Despite his medical treatment, he could not survive on account of fatal injuries and he died on 16.05.2000 in the hospital leaving behind the petitioner, being his widow, sons and daughters.3. The petitioner applied before the respondent employer for payment of the benefits of the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme under which her husband was a beneficiary and on the ground that death of her husband had occurred in course of his performance of duty.4. The petitioner's grievance is that despite several representa...
Tag this Judgment!H.M.P. Singh, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Inspector of Factories
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ78Jhar
Prashant Kumar, J.1. This application is for quashing the order dated 16.01.2003 passed by C.J.M., Bokaro in F.A. Case No. 1 of 2003 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under the Factories Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. It is alleged that on 15.10.2002 at 13.30 hours an accident took place in the Steel Melting Shop No. 2 of Bokaro Steel Plant, while a Crane was operating in the said plant. In that accident one worker, namely, Chandrika Prasad died. It is stated that notice of aforesaid accident was given to the Inspector of Factories on 16.10.2002. It is further stated that thereafter the Inspector of Factory, Bokaro inspected the Factory Premises on 19.10.2002, 22.10.2002, 24.10.2002 and 28.10.2002 and found that as per the provisions contained under Section 29 of the aforesaid 'Act' read with Rule 56A of the Bihar Factories Rules, the Crane had not been thoroughly examined by competent person and the examination report had also not been enter...
Tag this Judgment!Techno Engineering Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2703
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the earlier order, passed by this Court dated 18th January, 2007 in a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 7510 of 2006, no order has been passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act, 2003') and straightway a consequential effect has been given, namely, directly a bill has been issued for an amount of Rs. 5,98,860/-. It is further submitted that though the bill, which has been issued, ought to have been based upon an order under Section 126 of the Act, 2003, never such detailed speaking order has been passed and no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner, as envisaged under Section 126 of the Act, 2003, and, therefore, let this Court direct the concerned respondent authority to hear the petitioner or its representative and then to pass a speaking order under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 and till then, no effect may be given to any supplementary bill, which has been i...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G.K. Lath @ Gopal Krishna Lath Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ262
R.R. Prasad J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Rev. No.195 of 2007 affirming the order dated 18.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 case No. 704 of 2001 whereby the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner was rejected.2. The facts giving rise this application are that the complainant - respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging therein that on 18.9.2000 when the petitioner asked him on telephone to come to his chambers at Tata Main Hospital, he went there where he found the presence of 5-6 security men. There the petitioner and other securitymen compelled him to right down an application of premature retirement. On getting the said application, this petitioner disclosed that this has been procured at the instance of other accused persons, Managing Director as well as Executive Director of the TISCO. Thereafter this petitioner threatened him not to report to anyo...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2733; (2010)ILLJ343Jhar
Prashant Kumar, J.1. This is an application for quashing of order dated 4.7.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.L.A. Case No. 262(A)/2005 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. It appears that an official complaint was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by the Labour Superintendent, Dhanbad alleging therein that on 25.2.2005 at about 2.20 p.m. the Brick-kiln of the petitioner, namely, M/s. G.K.A. Itta Bhatta was inspected by the Labour Superintendent as per the provisions of the Act and found that in the aforesaid Brick-kiln one child labour, namely, Lalan Manjhi, was present. It is stated that the working of a child labour in Brick-kiln is contravention of Section 3 of the Act. It is also stated that as per Rules framed under the Act the register and notice board was not maintained by the establishment. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmi Impex Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2735
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed:(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents and each of them to recommend the case of the petitioner for the grant of mining lease and/or take suitable decision in respect thereof on the application of the petitioner both for the 500 acres of land subsequently notified and also the preferential right of the petitioner in respect of the balance area of land, applied for in terms of Section 11(2) of the M.M.D.R. Act, in respect of its applications.(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant mining lease to the petitioner for mining iron Ore in Karampada Reserve Forests.(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to treat all applicants for grant of mining lease in respect of Karampada Reserve Forests Iron Ore Mines, equally and without any discrimination.(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the natu...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kailash Vihari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, Min ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2720
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard Shri S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief(s).1. For issuance of an appropriate writ directing the concerned respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor and to the post of Professor with retrospective effect, from the due date.2. For a direction to the respondents to implement and follow the provisions of composite scheme of the respondent No. 1 dated 28.2.1989 (Annexure-8) and also the provisions of the State Government's Circular / direction as contained in letter No. 379 dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure-9)3. For quashing the decision of the respondent No. 3 vide Memo No. 302 dated 1.2.1994 (Annexure-10) and the notification issued consequent upon issuance of Annexure-10 whereby Birla Institute of Technology in which petitioner was appointed, was not included within the purview of the n...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Jani Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Gopal Krishna Kedia
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR2729
Prashant Kumar, J.1. This application is for quashing the order dated 18.4.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 670 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 1155 of 2006 by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, whereby and whereunder he issued non bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case is that one Gopal Krishna Kedia (complainant) purchased a medicine namely, syntocinon Injection bearing Batch No. 07025G from Rahul Medical Hall, Giridih for the treatment of his relative. It is alleged that the said medicine was manufactured by German Remedies Ltd. It is further stated that at the time of administering the aforesaid medicine, the nurse of the hospital detected some adulteration and therefore she did not administer the said injection. It is stated that thereafter on 27.11.2000, complainant sent a legal notice to the Company concerned. It is stated that in response to said legal notice, the Company sent its representative to Giridih for verification and t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›