Court : Jharkhand
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.4491of2015 PATEL & KAMANI AGENCIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI. NAKUL KAMANI SON OF LATE DHARAM CHAND KAMANI, RESIDENT OF DHARAM CHAND MANSION, 5TH FLOOR, 4 INNER CIRCLE ROAD, PO. & PS. BISTUPUR JAMSHEDPUR831001 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GROUNDFLOOR,HINDUSTANBUILDING,MAINROAD,PO.&PS. BISTUPURJAMSHEDPUR PETITIONER VERSUS1 THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED UNDER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONACT,1956ANDHAVINGITSPRINCIPALOFFICEAT YOGAKSHEMA,JEVANBEEMAMARG,MUMBAIANDHAVINGITS OFFICESAMOUGSTOTHERPLACESATJEEVANPRAKASH,MAIN ROAD, BISTUPUR, TOWNJAMSHEDPUR, DIST. EAST SINGHBHUMINTHESTATEOFJHARKHANDANDZONALOFFICE AT JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA, STATE OFBIHAR 2. THE ESTATE OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA APPOINTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINEXERCISEOFPOWERCONFERRED BY S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR1735
1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C. for short), against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2008 by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions field by the petitioner/appellant herein and was pleased to uphold the order of penalty of reduction in pay by three stages imposed on the respondent by the L.I.C.2. The respondent, B.N.P. Srivastava, was working as a Stenographer in the Divisional Office of the L.I.C. at Muzaffarpur and he was alleged to have claimed a sum of Rs. 85.50 (rupees eighty five and paise fifty only) as travelling allowance which according to the Enquiry Officer was found to be an incorrect claim and therefore it was held that he had acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and hence, the punishment as referred to above was imposed on him.This gave rise to a reference of dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and the term of reference specifically w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR68(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.2002, passed in CWJC No. 2534 of 1999 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application and has set aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner from the post of Apprentice Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application and also directed the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India of consider the case of the writ petitioner for his appointment on the post of Probationary Development Officer.2. The brief facts are that the sole respondent, namely, Mohammad Khurshid, filed CWJC No. 2534 of 1999 (R), before this Court, stating, inter alia, that pursuant to the advertisement, he applied for recruitment to the post of Apprentice Development Officer. After qualifying in the written test and the interview he was selected for being appointed to the said post and accordingly letter dated 30.11.1992 issued und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(1)JCR170(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondents which was communicated to them vide letters dated 9.5.2002 and 20.5.2002 whereby the competent authority has expressed its inability to appoint petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground for the reasons stated in the said letters.2. Petitioners' case is that the deceased husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was serving in the respondent-Bank as Armed Guard. He worked from 1996 to 1998 and, thereafter died in harness in 1998. The petitioners, thereafter, made an application for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected on the ground that the income shown by the bereaved family was sufficient to maintain the petitioners.3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that as per the policy and rules of the Bank compassionate appointment is given in cases where it is found that the family of the deceased employee is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR413(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the cases are same and even the parties are the same, both the cases were heard together and hence, both the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts which have given rise to W.P.(S) No. 1366 of 2003 are as follows: One B.N.P. Srivastava, respondent No. 4, while was working as Stenographer in the Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India at Muzaffarpur, visited Purnea on an official work. Thereupon he claimed Rs. 85.50 paise as travelling allowance which was paid but subsequently, in course of enquiry, it could be ascertained that on the date of journey, i.e, 16.4.1981, not a single 1st ticket of class had been issued from Muzaffarpur to Purnea and, therefore, charge was framed putting an allegation that respondent No. 4 deliberately made a false claim of Rs. 85.50paise as travelling allowance and thereby he acted in the manner prejudicial to good conduct and detrimental to the interest of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2878 of 2001 Som Nath Banerjee ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.2. Dilip Kumar .....Opposite Parties ---- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Awanish Shekhar, Advocate ----- 18/22.12.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 2.3.2001 by which cognizance for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with complaint case no 155 of 2000 has been taken.3. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition is that the accused persons are alleged to have accepted a policy being Policy No. 551328477, which was communicated to the complainant through a postc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3358 of 2016 H.N.Pareek & Company through one of its partner K.K. Pareek, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ......... Petitioner Vrs.1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Employment & Training, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. Employees State Insurance Corporation through the Regional Director, Regional Office, ESIC Namkum, Ranchi 3. Deputy Director, ESIC Regional Office, Namkum, Ranchi 4. Assistant Director, ESIC Regional Office, Namkum, Ranchi 5. Recovery Officer, ESIC Regional Office, Namkum, Ranchi ..... Respondents .... CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate, Arun Kr. Singh, A.K.Das and Rashmi Kumar, Advoates For the ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand For the State : M/s Rajiv Anand, G.A.IV, Shyam Narsaria 03/04.07.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The order dated 14.6.2016 (Annexure-13) passed by the Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Jharkhand)373; [2008]298ITR413(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR28(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby the following questions of law have been referred to this Court-1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under the head 'Income from House Property' arising out of determining the annual value in respect of portion of the house property rented out to M/s Wool House on the basis of rent received in respect of similar portion of the house property-rented out to a third party?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in directing that Annual value of the property in respect of portion rented to M/s Wool House should be determined obo actual rent received from M/s Wool House, when because of the close relationship between the assessee and M/s Wool House, the annual value should be determined on the consideration of rent receivable indicated by the rent receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2004(2)BLJR1153; [2004(2)JCR626(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda which was communicated vide memo dated 21.3.2001 whereby the Deputy Commissioners denied payment of wholesale dealers commission fixed earlier in pursuant to the order passed by Patna High Court in CWJC No. 11057/96 and further for a writ commanding upon respondent No. 4 Deputy Commissioner, Godda to restore of commission @ 2.15% on kerosene oil allowed to the kerosene oil wholesale dealers of Godda.3. Petitioners' case is that Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemical had appointed a working group consisting of three members including the, Chairman, namely, Sri. J.U. Talukdar, ICA retired Ex. Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Calcutta, Chairman Sri. S.S. Shiralkar, Additional Secretary, Ministry of F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2005(4)JCR356(Jhr)]
1. This appeal, at the instance of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th March, 2003, allowing the writ application filed by respondent No. 1 herein, being C.W.J.C. No. 2086 of 1996 (R), quashing the order dated 21st March, 1995, by which the petitioner's services had been terminated and holding that the writ petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits.2. The writ petitioner had been appointed as a Probationary Development Officer with effect from 23rd January, 1992, for a period of nine months. In terms of the appointment letter dated 18th January, 1992, the period of probation could be extended by a period of twelve months but so as not to exceed a total period of twenty four months.3. As will appear from the materials on record, after the initial period of probation of nine months, the period of probation was extended by a period of twelve months which was to end on 22nd October, 1994...
Tag this Judgment!