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 successors i.e. defendant-appellant and defendant-respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the coal mines (taking over of management) act, 1973 and coal mines (nationalization) act, 1973 or any other law and further for realization of rs. 1568.16 paise being the balance amount of the hire charges up to 17.09.1973 for one dozer and five trucks as per schedule b of the plaint and also a sum of rs. 42,65,381/- as damages as per his bill no. 8/73, 9/73, 10/73, 11/73, 12/73 and 13/73 of dated 01.07.1976 as per .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR677; 2001CriLJ3570
a.k. prasad j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-4-1996 and order dated 30-4-1996 in s.t. no. 5 of 1994 passed by sri sreeprakash rai, the then addl. judicial commissioner, ranchi, whereby and whereunder the appellants, namely, raj kumar pandit and naimuddin ansari, have been convicted under sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the indian penal code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and for life, respectively, on such counts. however, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. briefly put, the prosecution case, is as under : on 3-7-1993, around evening, sima kumari, the seven-year old daughter of the informant, bhukhli devi (p.w.3) was playing in hmg colony (g. type) of acc at dhawra, within p.s. khelari, district ranchi, with sita kumari (p.w.1), the minor sister of co-accused sibu ganjhu. while sima kumari, the deceased, was playing, she disappeared and did not return home. on search and enquiries, the informant (p.w. 3) could come to know from sita kumari (p.w.1) and phulwa devi (p.w.2) that a short while ago sibu ganjhu, the co-convict had lifted away sima kumari and when on that night, sibu ganjhu did not reach her home, the informant became suspicious and she started hectic search to trace the whereabouts of missing sima kumari. ultimately, on 6-7-1993 with the help of somra oraon, binod ganjhu (p.w.7) and some boys, all villagers of the informant, apprehended sibu ganjhu, the co-convict, from the place known as ojha- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR592(Jhr)]
..... it is the case that the plaintiff was an immature man or a minor and consequently, he could be influenced unduly by his brothers. ..... the plaintiff is 46 year old man and he has his separate factory (paragraph 92 of cross-examination). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(4)JCR274(Jhr)]
tapen sen, j.1. in this writ application, the petitioner, has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.10.1994 (annexure 7) passed; by respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and, therefore, in exercise of rule 27.1 (ii) (d) of the conduct, discipline and appeal rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') inflicted punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect. the petitioner has also challenged and prayed for quashing the appellate order passed by the board of directors, coal india limited (respondent no. 6) and communicated by the deputy chief personnel manager (ee), bharat coking coal limited (respondent no. 7) vide his confidential letter dated 7.10.1997 informing him that the board had not found any merit in his appeal and had accordingly rejected the same.2. according to the petitioner, while he was posted as a medical officer, his duty was such that he had to check the health of all workers and issue certificates from time to time which stood recorded in the registers maintained in the dispensary which was used for the purposes of granting leave etc. while he was posted as a senior medical officer in putki balihari area, he received the charge sheet dated 16.7.1987 (annexure 1) issued by respondent no. 4 wherein the petitioner was charged with the offence of having issued a false certificate in relation to one smt. ram kuer. the allegations were that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR713(Jhr)]
vishnudeo narayan, j.1. this appeal at the instance .of the appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 passed by shri p.k. sinha no. ii, 1st additional judicial commissioner-cum-special judge (cbi), ranchi in r.c. 7(a)/92r whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the said act) and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- and rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- respectively'and in default thereof to under rigorous imprisonment for one month each under both the counts. however, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. the prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the first information, report (ext. 10) lodged before delhi special police establishment ranchi branch by pw 8, p.k. panigrahi, inspector cbi, spe, ranchi on 16.4.3 992 at 8 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 14.4.1992 at 20.00 hours on the basis of the written report (ext. 13) of pw 5 gopal prasad sahu lodged before the superintendent of police, cbi ranchi.3. the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pw 5 gopal prasad sahu lodged a complaint in writing to s.p., cbi, ranchi stating therein that he had give a telephonic information to the divisional security .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2004Jhar143; [2004(4)JCR626(Jhr)]
vishnudeo narayan, j.1. this appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-6-1989 and 5-7-1989 respectively passed in money suit no. 175 of 1974/52 of 1988 by sri udaykant thakur, 4th subordinate judge, dhanbad whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs-appellant was dismissed.2. the plaintiffs-appellant had filed the said money suit for realisation of rs. 2,69,570.63 paise along with pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum against the defendants -respondent on the basis of the hundies detailed in schedule a of the plaint.3. the case of the plaintiffs-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs'), in brief is that the plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and also registered under the provisions of section 4 of the bihar moneylenders act, 1938 and they carry on business as bankers, general merchants and commission agents. it is alleged that defendant-respondent no. 1 was the managing agent of several companies detailed in paragraph 3 of the plaint and for the facilities of financing the business of all their companies, the defendant no. 1 had entered into financial arrangement with the plaintiffs on terms of business upon the basis of a letter of personal guarantee dated 12-9-1959 executed by karam chand thaper, son of lala mansa ram thaper, the then managing director of defendant no. 1. the said karamachand thaper died on 29-3-1962 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2005Jhar54; II(2005)BC387; [2005(1)JCR265(Jhr)]
hari shankar prasad, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1lth february, 2003 and decree dated 21.2.2003 passed in money suit no. 83 of 1996 whereby the learned sub-judge-iv, ranchi decreed the suit.2. the case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that the regional manager of defendants, by his letter dated 20.2.1992 requested the plaintiff-mecon company to enlist them as bankers of the plaintiff and requested for opening an account with them. after discussions held on 26.2.1992 with the general manager, deputy general manager and regional manager of the defendants about specific requirement of banking services, the defendants, vide their letter dated 27.2.1992 intimated their acceptance to provide the following services on opening an account with them.(i) cheque received from the plaintiff would be given instant credit without any charge.(ii) remittance to plaintiff s outstation branches would be done free of cost.(iii) cash would be remitted to plaintiffs office at their cost, and(iv) they invited proposal of bank guarantee, from the plaintiff for their consideration.3. the plaintiff, in response to their letter dated 27.2.1992 informed the defendants, vide letter dated 28.2.1992, that in course of its business the plaintiff is required to furnish necessary bank guarantee against the advances received from its clients and the plaintiff being a public sector undertaking, its clients are mostly public sector undertakings and government organizations .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2004(52)BLJR16
..... the said registered cover was received on 17-7-1982 by arjun nath sharma, post man, sendra bansjora colliery on identification of ram briksha bhuian. ..... on the withdrawal slip which was written in his presence and thumb impression was given by only ram briksha bhuian as kardhu dusadh and the said ram briksha bhuian signed as arjun nath sharma, post man, sendra bansjora post office. .....
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 reinstatement as also for granting him other benefits on 5.12.1982 i.e. after two years of the said judgment of acquittal. admittedly, the petitioner attained his age of superannuation on 60 years in 1987. thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute on 29.1.1988. on 10.2.1988 reference was made which was registered as reference case no. 41 of 1988. thus, it is seen that he raised the dispute after 20 years of his dismissal and eight years after his acquittal and when he crossed the age of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(1)JCR396(Jhr)]
orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard mr. sumeet gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. g. m. mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.2. learned, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a registered trade union and this case relates to the senior operative trainee/senior trainee of the first to 35th batch trained between 1970-1988, the reference to the 'petitioner', in this case will mean the said members of the petitioner.3. as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the main question involved in this writ petition is whether the period of 1 and 1/2 years, during which the petitioner worked as a senior trainee, is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of his seniority/promotion?4. the stand of the petitioner is that they were appointed as trainee and were governed by the service rules, as per the appointment letter issued to them. though the appointment letter stipulated about the application of the service rules but without any basis, the management started applying the other provisions. the petitioner moved this court vide cwjc no. 2235 of 1994 (r). the same was disposed of on 8.2.1996 with an observation that the petitioner should approach the authorities, who may consider the grievances in accordance with law. pursuant to the said order, a representation was made. the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.7.1996 (annexure 8). the training is an 'in service training', and is a feeder post. petitioners were .....
Tag this Judgment!