Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2009(2)JCR274(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1999 passed by learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Title Appeal No. 89 of 1996 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, and also the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1996 passed by learned Munsif, Khunti, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 4 of 1987.2. On 27.4.2001, the following substantial question of law was formulated:Whether in absence of any finding that Exhibit 1 was invalid and was not acted upon, plaintiff could have been denied her claim for partition in the suit property?3. Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant argued on the said question of law. He submitted that it was admitted case of the parties that Tileshwari Devi (Defendant No. 21) had l/4th share in Schedules A and B property and, therefore, the appellant being purchaser from Tileshwari Devi was entitled to maintain the suit for partition against the other co-sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2009Jhar148
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the name of respondent No. 4.2. Permission, as prayed for is granted.3. Amendment shall be carried out during course of the day.4. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the trial Court i.e. 1st Additional. Munsif, Jamshedpur has dismissed art application preferred by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) under Order VI Rule 17,of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferred in Title Suit No. 26/1995, dated 27th September, 2006.5. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur dated 27th September, 2006 passed in a suit under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. preferred in Title Suit No. 26/1995 for the following facts and reasons:(i) It appears from the fact of the case that present petitioner is original plaintiff, who has filed a Title Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2010Jhar7; [2009(1)JCR181(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandrajeet Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In the Instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is defendant, has challenged the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the Petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the written statement.3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned eviction suit for a decree of eviction of the defendant-pentioner from the suit premises. The defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement denying the grounds for eviction set forth in the plaint. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed application on 17.3.2008 seeking amendment of the written statement. The proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner is quoted herein below:After para 17 of the written statement the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2009(2)JCR346(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:i) For the issuance of a writ, direction order in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the discharge order dated 7.7.2001 (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been discharged from service with immediate effect.ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order including a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for giving effect to the impugned orders dated 7.7.2001 contained in Anexure-1 and to direct them to restore the status and public office of the petitioner herein with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.2. The facts in brief are stated as under:The petitioner was appointed as clerk by the Management of B.C.C.L. in the year 1971. On 7.7.2001 the petitioner received a discharge letter under the signature of Agent/Project-Officer, Dhansa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2009Jhar157
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside of the Award dated 12-12-2006 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad in exercise of its power under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 through which he has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-with interest @ 9% to the respondent No. 1.2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under : The respondent herein filed a claim application for payment of the sum assured to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of death of Dhananjay Kumar Singh who was covered under personal accident policy with the petitioner. However, the petitioner authority disputed the claim on the ground that no supporting document regarding specific cause of death was enclosed and accordingly repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 23-11-2004. The respondent herein filed the claim against the aforesaid order befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR533(Jhr)]
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to stay the process of filling up 34 posts of Additional District Judges by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination from amongst the Sub Judges, i.e., Civil Judge (Senior Division) possessing five years experience or more, scheduled to be held on 31.08.2008 on the sole ground that the respondents have disturbed the quota of promotion on the post of Additional District Judges by assigning more posts in the quota of Civil Judge (Senior Division), i.e., Subordinate Judges, leaving no posts to be filled up by the direct recruits, which is clearly contrary to the ratio of the judgment and order delivered in the matter of All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : [2002]2SCR712 commonly known as All India Judges Association Case.2. The petitioners have further prayed that until the confirmation of services of the petitioners in the rank of Additional District & Sessions J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(1)JCR94(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. As common questions of law are involved in all these writ petitions and two sets of prayer have been made therein, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. While many of the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the 'Bihar Taxes on entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof Act, 1993' (Bihar Act 16 of 1993-hereinafter to be referred as 'Bihar Entry Tax Act. 1993') ultra vires Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India, in some of the cases further prayer has been made to declare 'Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001' [Jharkhand Ordinance No. 02 of 2002 hereinafter to be referred as Jharkhand Entry Tax (Amendment) Ordinance. 2001'] as violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.3. In W.P. (T) Nos. 2937 of 2003, 3457 of 2004, 4128 of 2005 & 4199.. of 2005 further declaration has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(1)JCR330(Jhr)]
ORDERNerendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.12.2005 passed by the learned Munsif, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 20 of 2001, whereby the learned Court below has refused to allow the amendment, sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit and that the defendant will be prejudiced, as the trial has already been commenced and evidences of the witnesses have been closed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought for intended to correct the clerical errors and they are formal in nature. The plaintiff has not sought for any amendment for replacing any new relief against the defendant, neither any new case has been pleaded to the surprise of the defendant. Learned Counsel submitted that without any application of mind, learned Court below has mechanically observed that the proposed amendment will change the nat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR383(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4132 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 13.7.2006 whereby the respondent (writ petitioner) was put under suspension on the allegations of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the appellant - Jharkhand State Electricity Board.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:At the relevant time, the writ petitioner was holding the post of Junior Engineer posted at Jamshedpur. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short 'JSEB'), the respondent-writ petitioner was put under suspension on the allegations that he was prima facie found guilty of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the Board and also guilty of gross indiscipline, insubordination and gross misconduct on his par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2010Jhar13
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief(s):1. For quashing the communication/order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondents declaring that the petitioner is not eligible for taking the benefits of one time settlement scheme (OTS Scheme) for liquidation of his debt.2. For quashing the specific clause of the OTS Scheme under which the promoters/guarantors of the Unit against which sale order has been issued and auction for retention of the Unit as per the terms of the sale order, has not been taken by them, shall not be eligible for taking benefits of OTS Scheme.3. For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to issue the application form of OTS Scheme to the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefits of settling the dues under OTS Scheme.By introducing a further prayer through the amendment of the writ application, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notic...
Tag this Judgment!