Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR437(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant (who was defendant No. 2 in the suit) has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.1995 and 08.03.1995 respectively passed by Shri Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Sub-Judge VI. Ranchi in Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 whereby and whereunder the said title suit was decreed in part directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs, 25'51,568.16 paise along with interest pendente lite and future @ 6% within three months.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 on 15.09.1976 against the defendant-appellant and proforma defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a declaration that the goods mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint were taken over from the custody of the plaintiff-respondent on 18.09.1973 and 19.09.1973 illegally and without any authority of law and they did not vest in the Central Government and subsequently ..in the Coal Mines Authority Limited and its succ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR217]; [2004(1)JCR66(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 31.3.1993, passed in Reference Case No. 41 of 1988 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. The Tribunal heard four Reference Cases, including Reference Case No. 41 of 1988, or the preliminary point of maintainability and held that they are not maintainable in view of the Coal Mines Nationalization Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Amendment Act' for Short).2. The petitioner, an employee of Loyabad colliery, after due enquiry was dismissed on 6.4.1968 on the charge of defalcation of money, belonging to the Cooperative Stores of the Colliery. Under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 ('Nationalization Act' for short), the Colliery was nationalized. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner regarding the said defalcation in which he was acquitted by judgment-dated 9.10.1980. The petitioner claims that he made a representation for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR296(Jhr)]; (2003)IIILLJ1082Jhar
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties.Both the connected matters are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. The management has challenged the award whereby and whereunder the management has been directed to give employment to the two workmen (respondent No. 3 and 4), in such post as they were previously employed, whereas CWJC No. 1484 of 1994 (R) the two workmen have challenged the award on the ground that back wages from 18.11.1986 has not been provided in the award.CWJC No. 754 of 1994(R)2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the following facts are un-controverted.(I) M/s. Oriental Coal Company Limited (Company for short) was the owner of the coal mine, namely Badjna Colliery, which was nationalized under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. At the time of taking over of the mine, the said company refused to handover the Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Limited (BEFW) to the custodian/Central Government, on the ground that the same was a se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(3)BLJR2164; [2003(3)JCR787(Jhr)]; (2004)ILLJ346Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The Workman Dip Lal Singh, Watchman of Bararee Coke Plant was in the services of M/s. Bararee Coke Co. Ltd. His services were terminated by a Notice dated 12th October, 1971 w.e.f. 19th October, 1971. The dispute was raised by the workman after about nine years of termination and after about ten years, the Central Government referred the following dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act, 1947) to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. II (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). 'Whether the action of the management of Bararee Coke Plant of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad in terminating the services of Shri Dip Lal Singh, Watchman with effect from the 19th October, 1971 vide Management's notice dated the 12th October, 1971 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? 2. In the Reference Case No. 13 of 1982, though M/s. Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1185; [2007(2)JCR357(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 13.9.2005 issued by the State Government withdrawing the proposal of the petitioners for approval Under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1960 (in short 'Act of 1960') and also withdrawing the application of the petitioners for grant of mining lease of Iron Ore in different areas of Mouza Ghatkuri in West Singhbhum district for captive consumption of its Integrated Steel Plant in the State of Jharkhand and further for a direction prohibiting the State Government from promulgating notification for dereservation under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short 'Rules of 1960') regarding the applied area of the petitioners for mining lease.2. First of all, I shall state the brief facts of the case pleaded by the writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions.3. W.P.C. No. 1769/2006: The petitioner M/s. Adhunik Alloys & Power Ltd ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR267(Jhr)]; (2008)18VST289(Jharkh)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In W.P. (T) No. 6377 of 2007, the petitioner-assessee has prayed for quashing the notice dated 20.2.2007 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad whereby he has initiated suo motu revision proceedings under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and further for a declaration that the impugned notice issued by the Joint Commissioner is bad in law and does not fulfill the mandatory requirement of the Act. The petitioner also seeks a direction upon the respondents to refund the excess amount realized from it by the respondents for which refund applications of the petitioner are pending before them. By filing amendment petition, the petitioner also sought for quashing the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by respondent No. 3 Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
W. P. (C) No. 3685 of 2015 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India --- AMR DEV PRABHA, a Consortium of M/s. AMR India Ltd. and M/s Dev Prabha Construction Pvt. Ltd. having its head office at Sai Krupa, D. No. 8-3-833, Phase-I, Kamalapauri Colony, Hyderabad-500073 through its power of attorney holder Mithilesh Kumar Singh S/o Shyam Bahadur Singh R/o Simlabahal Colliery, PO & PS-Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad Petitioner Versus 1.The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal having its office at Shastri Bhawan, Level 3, Rajpath, New Delhi 110001, PO & PS, Rajpath, District New Delhi 2.The Central Vigilance Commission through its Commissioner having its office at Satarkta Bhawan, A-Block, GPO Complex, I.N.A. New Delhi-110023, PO & PS I.N.A., District New Delhi 3.The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and Government of India undertaking, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having registered o...
Tag this Judgment!