Jharkhand Court January 2014 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Court: Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ranchi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia, President- 1. Heard Mr. M. Kumar learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party/appellant (Bank for short) on limitation as well as admission matter. The delay of four days in filing this appeal is condoned. 2. After hearing Mr. Kumar for the Bank and carefully going through the impugned order and the other documents, we find no merit in this appeal. 3. According to the complainant/Respondent/Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, after crediting Rs. 50,000/-, the Bank issued a Fixed Deposit receipt no. TDR 696493 in his favour but the Bank is not paying the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit. 4. According to the Bank due to heavy rush and by mistake/inadvertence, TDR was issued and at the time of maturity, the proof of credit of such amount could not be found. Therefore, the Bank was not obliged to pay the maturity amount. Mr. Kumar submitted that the complainant did not produce any documents to show that he got the said amount credited. 5. It is not the case of the Ba...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
1. This Public Interest Litigation was initially filed by one Ashim Kumar Samanta, who was made a party- Respondent in the present proceeding by order dated 06.02.2013, seeking a direction upon the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the alleged bungling committed in the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination conducted in the year, 2011 for admission in the Medical colleges of the State of Jharkhand. 2. The allegations made by the impleaded Respondent no.15 in the writ petition were found frivolous and it was observed by this Court that the Respondent no.15 has been set up at the behest of the Respondent no.16, Narayan Hansda. The order dated 06.02.2013 reads as under: œLearned counsel for the respondent no. 11 has serious allegation with respect to bonafide of the petitioner as well as reason for filing the petition in the name of P.I.L. in violation to the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Respondent's allegations against the...
The State of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary, Ranchi and Others ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
In this Letters Patent Appeal challenged to order dated 19.09.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3019 of 2011 is confined to the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules which reads as under : Rule 43 (b) : œThe State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re2 employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment; (i) shall not be instituted save wi...
Steel Authority of India Limited, Research and Development Centre Thro ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
1. Since the challenge to the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad made on 18.04.2012 has failed before the Writ Court, the Steel Authority of India has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The Steel Authority of India is a Government company and is manufacturing steel. It is also engaged in the research and development activities in the field of iron and steel. The writ petition was filed challenging the Reference Order dated 18.04.2012 to the extent that the appellant was made a party in the dispute. The Reference Order dated 18.04.2012 was also challenged as not maintainable on the ground that the dispute was between the terminated employees and their employer and not between the terminated employees and the appellant. The case pleaded by the appellant before the Writ Court was that a contractor was selected through tender process for outsourcing the job of upkeep and maintenance of the Guest House and T.D.C. Programme Com...
The Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Chander Pandey
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
R. Banumathi, C.J. 1. Challenging order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5560 of 2006 in and by which the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 13.10.2006 compulsorily retiring the respondent and directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 2. The respondent joined the service of Border Security Force in the year, 1989 and was engaged in combat operation in the extremists affected Kashmir Vally. In the first week of May, 1995, he sustained injuries on account of bombblast on 04.05.1995. The respondent was referred to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi by the Director General, Border Security Force Hospital, New Delhi, vide reference dated 06.05.1995. The doctors of the AIIMS, New Delhi assessed the respondent disabled to the extent of 60% vide order dated 08.01.1996. Vide order dated 05.08.1997, the respondent was transfer...
Mira Mahananda Vs. Union of India Through Its General Manager, S.E. Ra ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1. Aggrieved by a part of order dated 05.07.2012 passed in O.A. No. 73 of 2011 (R) whereunder it has been held that the transfer order is not loaded with malafide nor it has been issued to victimise the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. Further prayers seeking quashing of Memo dated 16.04.2011 and orders dated 09.04.2011 and 13.04.2011 have also been made in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sweeper, Group D post. She was subsequently posted as Store KHI in Railway Hospital, Chakradharpur. A sparing memo dated 16.04.2011 was served to the petitioner with a direction to report to CMS/BNDM. On an application made under R.T.I., the copy of letter dated 09.04.2011 issued by the CMS/CKP was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 73 of 2011 (R) seeking quashing of order dated 16.04.2011. The said application has been dismissed recording as under : 11.? The applic...
Bokaro Steel Limited Vs. Ram Naresh Singh and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
R. Banumathi, C.J. 1. This L.P.A is preferred against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in W.P(S) No. 373 of 2012, by which learned Single Judge directed the appellant-company to pay the entire gratuity amount retained by them to the respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. The respondent was the employee of the appellant-company and he retired from the service of the appellant-company with effect from 30.6.2006. By letter dated 9.6.2006, the respondent made a representation to the appellant-company requesting it to allow him to retain the quarters for a period of one year on the ground that the construction of his house at his native place is under way and it would require sometime. On the basis of the said representation, by an order dated 23.6.2006, the respondent was permitted to retain the quarters on certain terms and conditions. For retention of the quarters after retirement, the respondent voluntarily agreed to pay an amount equal to gratuity as security and to that ef...
Binod Singh Vs. Raghunath Tiwari and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
1. This review petition has been filed for review of orderdated 18.7.2007 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 3621 of 2007. 2. The case as made out by the writ petitioner in the œPublic Interest Litigation? being W.P. (PIL) No. 3621 of 2007 is as under: The land appertaining to khata no. 334 plot nos. 1445 and 1446 is a property of Central Government as it is recorded as œKeshr-e-Hind? in the last Cadastral survey completed prior to 1910. The writ petitioner/first respondent came to know that the then Circle Officer illegally issued rent receipts in favour of one Shiv Narayan Jaiswal and Jagat Narayan Jaiswal by settling the same in their names and the said Shiv Narayan Jaiswal and Jagat Narayan Jaiswal have got no piece of land within the Bagodar Circle and at no point of time they were resident of Bagodar Police Station. It is further submitted that the œKeshar-e-Hind? land cannot be settled with anybody who were not resident of the area. While so, Shiv Narayan Jaiswal and oth...
Madan Mohan Gond Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. The writ petitioner is in appeal against the judgment dated 29thAugust 2013 passed in WPC No. 6140/2012 by the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain his writ application. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 14thSeptember 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur cancelling his election as Mukhiya of Shaharkol Panchayat, had preferred the writ application seeking quashing of the same. 2. The appellant had contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of the said panchayat falling within the district of Pakur claiming himself to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The appellant was declared elected for the said post. The respondent no. 4 challenged his election before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pakur on the ground that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes Category and was not eligible to contest the election as a Scheduled Tribe Candidate for the post...
Landu Deogam and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
1. The present public interest litigation has been filed by the three petitioners claiming themselves to be the Members of Scheduled Tribes of the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 were said to have been present at the place of the incidence which occurred on 29/30thJune 2011 in which one Mangal Honhaga was killed during anti naxal operation conducted by the CRPF in Saranda forest area,West Singhbhum. Petitioner no. 3 claims to be the brother of the deceased Mangal Honhaga. 2. Petitioners have alleged that during anti naxal operations being conducted by the State Police / CRPF in June 2011, the petitioner no. 1 and one another person were forcibly taken to the Jungle by the Police / CRPF personnel on 28thJune 2011. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that on the fateful night on 28thJune 2011 at 1.00 AM, while the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and other villagers proceeded towards Chotanagra, the Police Force was marching with around 15 tribals / village persons who were with...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »