Jharkhand Court December 2011 Judgments
M/S. Vikas Stone Works Through Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Saha, Sahebgan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by and prayed for quashing of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj whereby the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of licence and also by the order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the Mines Commissioner has remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 24.04.2010 whereby the mining lease of the land in question has been granted in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. According to the petitioner, revision was preferred against the order dated 14.07.2005 whereby prayer for renewal of lease was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner being Revision Case No. 60 of 2005. The said revision was disposed of by order dated 27.02.2008 by remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj for fresh consideration in view of the new facts raised by the intervenor -respondent nos. 5 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8th September, 2009, passed in Misc.Case No.07/2008, by which the court of Sub-Ordinate Judge - I, Ranchi, has partly allowed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and set aside the part of the award awarding an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the appellant's doing extra work alleged to have been done under the contract. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the scope under section 34 of the Act, 1996 is very limited and the court below could have interfered with the award only on satisfying itself about the validity of the ground under sub-section (2) of Section 34. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator gave full opportunity to the respondent-State to produce documents, particularly the measurement book and work order book but in spite of grant of several opportunities, the respondent-State did not produce the measurement book and work...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›