Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jan-13-2005
Reported in : 2005(1)BLJR248; [2005(105)FLR244]; [2005(1)JCR479(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Ranchi University Grade-IV Staff Association (in short 'the Association') and another against the order dated 17th March, 2004, passed in W.P. (S) No. 1508 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has upheld the direction, issued by the Secretary, Human Resources Development (Higher Education) Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Letter No. 5/B1-40/2002 Edn. 268 dated, 19th February, 2004 to retire the teaching/non-teaching employees of the Universities /constituent Colleges within the State of Jharkhand, on completion of 42 years of service.2. The questions, required to be determined in the present appeal, are :(i) Whether an employee of the University/constituent College can be allowed to retire prior to the age of superannuation on the ground that he has completed 42 years of service? and(ii) Whether the direction, issued by the Secretary, Human Resources Development (Higher...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Mar-30-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)BLJR1059; [2005(2)JCR293(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya1. As in all the appeals and writ petition, common questions of law are Involved, relating to appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers in Nationalized Primary Schools, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In pursuance of an advertisement, published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as 'JPSC'), all the appellants/ petitioners applied for appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers; most of them were declared successful by the JPSC but they have not been appointed on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualifications i.e. decree/diploma/ certificate of teachers training from an institute, recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter to be referred as 'NCTE').3. In fact, after selection of the candidates, the JPSC recommended the names of the selected candidates on the condition that appointment letter(s) should be issued only after prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : May-20-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)BLJR1559; [2005(3)JCR448(Jhr)]
1. This writ petition was filed before a learned Single Judge by the Jharkhand Party, but was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 21st April, 2005 having regard to the fact that several important questions of law relating to the interpretation of various constitutional provisions had been raised in the writ petition. The matter was thereafter taken up by the Division Bench and notices were issued to all the respective parties. All the parties were duly represented by their learned counsels and submissions were advanced on all of their behalf.2. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :(i) 'For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including a writ of certiorari, to quash the election of Sri Inder Singh Namdhari (Respondent No. 2) as Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, being elected illegally, malafidely and contrary to Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.(ii) And, in the alter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jul-15-2005
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC356; 2005(3)BLJR2017; [2005(3)JCR366(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in PLA Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat raised by the petitioner has been decided in favour of the claimant- respondent.2. Respondent No. 2 obtained a Burglary and House Breaking Policy from the petitioner-Insurance Company. As alleged, on 18/19.8.2002 a burglary took place and respondent No. 2 submitted claim with the Insurance Company for a loss of Rs. 11,14,577/-. For the said occurrence F.I.R. was also lodged. Subsequently, the claim of respondent No. 2 was repudiated by the Insurance Company. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 255 of 2004 before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi which was dismissed by the Consumer Forum by order dated 31.8.2004 holding that deficiency in service relating to a commercial activity is not to be considered by Consumer Forum as s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-29-2005
Reported in : [2005(3)JCR357(Jhr)]
1. On 21st November, 1946, the erstwhile Raja of Ramgarh executed a lease in favour of Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited in respect of 4299.84 acres of land for a period of 999 years for colliery purposes. The lease was to be effective from 1st March, 1946. Subsequently, on 23rd January, 1947, the lessee, Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited, granted a sub-lease of the demised lands to West Bokaro Limited on the same terms and conditions as contained in the head lease.2. In 1950, the Bihar Land Reforms Act was enacted and the same came into force in the State of Bihar on 25th September, 1950. The said Act provided for transfer of estates and tenures in the State and Section 10, inter alia, provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, where immediately before the date of vesting of the estate or tenure there was a subsisting lease of mines or minerals comprised in the estate or tenure or any part thereof, the whole or that part of the estate or tenure comprised in such lease would, with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Nov-22-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ921; I(2006)DMC663; [2006(1)JCR101(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1 .In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.4.1998 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petition under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner for his discharge.2. The facts in short are that a complaint petition was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, against the petitioner and one Budha Dev Banerjee for commission of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 268 of 1995.3. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that the complainant-opposite party No. 2, had a marriageable daughter, namely, Meena Chakraborty and he was in search of matching groom for his daughter. A common relative, namely, Budhdev Banerjee (the other co-accused) assured the complainant that the marriage between her daughter and Asish Chattopadhya, son of petitioner can be settled provided some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-02-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Jhar19; [2006(1)JCR1(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. The only question referred to and sought to be answered by this Bench in these appeals is : Whether an appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent (commonly known as Letters Patent Appeal--LPA) is maintainable against an order passed by a single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :Appellant Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay of L.P.A. No. 312 of 2004 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Refractories Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s. B.R.L.). He was allotted a Flat No. 6013 in Sector IV-F of Bokaro Steel City. Even after his dismissal from service, he did not vacate the official quarter. On an application jointly preferred by 'Bokaro Steel Plant' of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the SAIL) and M/s. B.R.L., a proceeding under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act) was initiated against the appellant, registered as A/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : May-16-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)BLJR1580; [2005(3)JCR1(Jhr)]
Altamas Kabir, C.J.1. The State Bank of India, the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, filed Money Suit No. 12 of 1983 against the appellant and proforma respondents for recovery of its dues amounting to Rs. 6,43,663/84-P. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement and taking the plea that there was no cause of action for the suit, which was, therefore, not maintainable. As many as 11 issues were framed. While issues Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the contesting defendants No. 1 to 6, issues No. 9 and 8 were partly allowed. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and so were the issues No. 1, 2 and 11. In the result, the suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the suit, the State Bank of India, filed an appeal in this Court, being FA No. 766 of 1992 R. The said appeal ultimately succeeded and by judgment dated 20th August 2004, the findings of the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-07-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ774; [2005(4)JCR415(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is accused in different Scam Cases of Animal Husbandry Department (commonly known as 'Fodder Scam Cases'), having preferred these writ petitions and having raised common question, all the three writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.WP (Cr) No. 74 of 2005In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th February, 2005, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in RC 5(A) of 2000, whereby, the learned Court below while rejecting the prayer, made on behalf of the petitioner to issue summons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on certain witnesses, also rejected the prayer of the petitioner to record statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the statement of the accused persons in RC 47(A) of 1996 (Pat), recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.From the statement, made on behalf of the petitioner, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Jhar29; I(2006)DMC55; [2005(4)JCR191(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Section 151(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the District Judge, Seraikella in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2005 whereby he has dismissed the Misc. case filed by the petitioner for setting aside the decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2001.2. The opposite party, who is husband of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The said application was registered as Matrimonial Case No. 5 of 2001. It appears that the relationship of the petitioner and the opposite party, who were married in 1999, became worst and they started living separately: Out of the said wedlock, a son was born in 2000. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge passed an order on 6.9.2001 for dissolution of the marriage and the decree was prepared. The petitioner, who is the wife, however f...
Tag this Judgment!