Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Nov-02-2007
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR542(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Since common issues are involved in these three writ petitions, a common order is being passed. In these three writ petitions, Sub-section (ii) of Section 1 of the Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006 and Sub-section (ii) of Section 1 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 are being challenged by the petitioners seeking for a declaration that Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2000 and Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006 cannot be extended by the State to the Ranchi District including the schedule area as the Parliament alone can extend the provisions of Part IX A of the Constitution of India to the scheduled areas through legislation as contemplated under Article 243ZC of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge the following contentions:(i) Part IX of the Constitution of India relates to the Municipalities;(ii) Under Article 243ZC, the provisions of Part IX A of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-20-2007
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR660
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 12.6.2007, passed by Shri Vishal Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected with a direction to the petitioners to stand charge under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the police party, on tip off, headed by a police officer of the rank of D.S.P. intercepted a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. JH 10B 7373 on 05.12.2003 and apprehended the petitioners (1) Pratik Sarkar (2) M.B. Suresh and (3) Jitendra Laxman Thorve. When called upon, all the three petitioners narrated that construction work of G.T. Road was undertaken by their Company H.C.C. and a few days ago, some employees of Hindustan Construction Company were abducted by the terrorist organization M.C.C.I. The abducted persons were rescued on the quick actio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-21-2007
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR458
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. C.B.I initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, before the court below for grant of ad interim order of attachment of the properties detailed in their application and further for making the same absolute as envisaged under Section 5 of the Ordinance, 1944. After passing ad interim order of attachment, the court below initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, appeared before the learned Special Judge, and filed an application for dropping the proceedings initiated against him, as the Ordinance, 1944, is not an existing law. The said application was rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for quashing of the order dated 29.6.2006.2. The short facts are as follows:In pursuance of the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, investigation of certain cases relating to Fodder Scam had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jan-09-2007
Reported in : 2007(1)BLJR831
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioners who are Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the order dated 13.9.2004 passed by Munsif, Garhwa in Partition Suit No. 22/2003 whereby he in purported exercise of power under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC has disallowed the so called counter claim made by the petitioners in the written statement.2. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted the aforesaid suit for a preliminary decree in respect of 1/6th share of the properties fully described in Schedule A, B, C, D and E of the plaint.3. Plaintiffs' case inter alia is that he and the defendants are the sons and daughters of late Bateshwar Tiwari who had acquired Schedule-A land. Schedule-B lands were acquired by him through Partition Suit No. 24/1923. Schedule 'C' lands were acquired by the mother of the parties, whereas plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 acquired Schedule-D property. It was alleged that Pucca Well described under Schedule 'F' was constructed by plaintiff from his own earnings. Bateshwar Tiwari ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-07-2007
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR174(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, for the following reliefs:(i) For declaration that the supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, X-ray items etc which are supplied by the petitioner to its indoor patients during the course of their treatment is not a transaction which comes within the meaning of 'Sale' as defined under Section 2(t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not taxable under the said Act.(ii) For declaration that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'Dealer' as defined under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not required to be registered as 'Dealer' under the said Act.(iii) To quash the notice dated 31/3/2005 contained in Annexure- 3 to the writ application issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, asking the petitioner to explain as to why an action be not taken against it for not registering itself as registered 'Dealer'.(iv)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-05-2007
Reported in : [2008]301ITR333(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR357(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. On the reference application from the side of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance of earlier years in spite of the fact that the return was filed late?2. The facts of the case, in brief, necessary for answering the question are as under:The assessee is a partnership firm. Original statement was completed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the Assessing officer passed revisional order under Section 154 of the Act, withdrawing the allowance of carry forward of depreciation and investment in respect of assessment year 1985-86 on the ground that there was delay in filing the return of income. The Assessing officer took the view that under Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, carry-fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-04-2007
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
Decided on : May-07-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR2042; [2007(3)JCR292(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the authority of the State of Jharkhand, Department of Mines to issue executive order/resolution revising the surface rent of the land held by the petitioners as mining lessees. In all these writ applications, since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the resolution as contained in memo No. 1055 dated 17.6.2005 whereby and where under the State Govt. has arbitrarily changed the rate and mode of calculation of the surface rent for the area used by the lessee for mining purposes and thereby decided that the entire land under the lease for mining purposes will be commercially valued and 5% of the valuation so arrived and will be charged as the surface rent and further for declaring the aforementioned resolution as illegal, void and contrary to the rule m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jan-18-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1153; [2007(2)JCR180(Jhr)]; (2007)7VST109(Jharkh)
Permod Kohli, J.1. Common challenge is made to Notification No. S.O.201 dated 30th March, 2006, issued under Section 7(3)(b) of' the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, whereby and whereunder, Notification Nos. S.O.478 dated 22nd December, 1995, S.O.57 dated 2nd March, 2000, S.O.479 dated 22nd December, 1995 and S.O.58 dated 2ndMarch, 2000 have been withdrawn. A further, challenge is to another Notification No. S.O.202 dated 30th March, 2006, issued under Section 8(5)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, whereby, Notification No. S.O.481 dated 22nd December, 2005 has been withdrawn. Apart from challenging the aforementioned notifications, constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 95(3)(ii) and Section 96(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is also questioned. In view of the commonality of the grounds of challenge, all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the petitioners herein have established their industrial uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-12-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1358; [2007(4)JCR446(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. The parties were heard at length for final disposal of the writ petition on 25.1.2007 when the order was reserved and prayer for interim relief was refused.2. Petitioner claims to be an Association of the employees of Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC), working within the State of Jharkhand. According to the petitioner, in view of the resolutions of BSFC, the decision of the Government of Bihar dated 24.3.2005 (Annexure-1) to enhance the age of superannuation of State Government employees from 58 to 60 years, has become applicable to the members of petitioner also and there is no need to get sanction of the State Government to amend Regulation 19 (i) of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1965 (the Regulation for short), for this purpose.3. By way of Amendment Petition, (I.A. No. 244 of 2007), petitioner has challenged the decision of the State of Bihar, communicated under Memo No. 255 dated 12.1.2007 refusing sanction to the resolutions ...
Tag this Judgment!