Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR527(Jhr)]
ORDER1. A suit, Title Suit No. 5 of 1986 was filed by the appellants herein as the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 29.4.1989. An appeal was filed before this Court by the plaintiffs on 24.7.1989. That appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.1.2002. This appeal was filed invoking Clause 10 of the Letter Patent. The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 22 of 2002 and Act 46 of 1999 was brought into force with effect from 1.7.2002. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977 was amended. The present appeal was filed only on 30.9.2002, after the coming into force of the amended Section 100A of the Code. The question is whether this appeal is maintainable or could be entertained by this Court. 2. Even at the outset, we must express our disappointment at the assistance we received in deciding this difficult question....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
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
Reported in : I(2006)DMC140; [2005(4)JCR340(Jhr)]
Altamas Kabir, C.J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order dated 22nd June, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in F A No. 105 of 2003 filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a question has arisen as to whether the instant appeal is maintainable or not having regard to the amended provisions of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appellant herein filed Matrimonial Case No. 13 of 1994 in the Court of the District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and for other reliefs against the respondent No. 1 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent No. 1 appeared and contested the suit and made several counter allegations against the appellant in her written statement contending that in view of the said allegations, it was impossible for her to live with the appellant as his wife. She also claimed interest pendente lite and permanen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2722; [2008(3)JCR735(Jhr)]; (2009)IIILLJ669Jhar
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners in this writ application have challenged the order dated 31.12.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in P.W. Case No. 3 of 2000, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 88,500/- by way of Payent of wages to the Respondent.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the house bearing Holding No. 39 within Ward No. 17 of the Deoghar Municipality, which was acquired by him by way of inheritance, from his mother.Later, he sold the house to the petitioner No. 2. The Respondent No. 1, Rajan Kumar Shrivastav, claiming himself to be employed as an undertaker by the petitioners for looking after and managing the aforesaid Holding of the petitioners at Deoghar, filed a petition before the Labour Court, Deoghar under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on 17.11.2000, contending therein, that he was employed by the petitioners in the year 1995 as a Caretaker, on a sal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR365(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, A.C.J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as ultra vires and violative of Article 301 read with Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India since the provision is not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and further for a direction restraining the respondents from enforcement of the provisions of Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act. 2005 whereby Entry Tax is liable to be collected on entry of goods mentioned in Schedule III of the said Act. The petitioners further sought a declaration that the entry tax is not compensatory in nature falling under Article 304 of the Constitution of India. As such, the said provision is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents-State filed counter-affidavit taking various defences available in law in support of their case that provisions of the Act is compensatory in nature and, therefore, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2005(4)JCR1(Jhr)]
..... act, 2001, as amended from time to time, in general, at the time of argument, their counsel have confined their argument by challenging section 17(b), 21(b), 36(b), 40(b) and 55(b) of jharkhand panchayat raj act, 2001.6. petitioners amar kumar mahto and ors. of wp (pil) no. 849 of 2002 have also prayed for a direction of the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid section 17(b), section 21(b), section 36(b) section 40(b), section 51(b) and section ..... only one as the head of its executive committee, then the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned provisions amount to an untenable 100% reservation seems to be patently unanswerable. by the amended provisions of the ordinance in the respective villages where the office of the mukhiya would, by the collector, be reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes only, then it would ..... ,71,23 12.18%deoghar 11,90,85 12.76%_____________________________________________________grand total 60,44,012 27.67%(state of jharkhand)_____________________________________________________37. the scheduled areas (states of chhatisgarh, jharkhand and madhya pradesh) order, 2003, shows that only blocks of certain ..... (states of bihar, gujarat, madhya pradesh and orissa), order, 1977. the writ petition being wp (pil) no. 2133 of 2002 has become infructuous to this extent.32. so far as issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to re-demarcate the panchayat areas, taking into consideration the geographical status .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.5337of2015 M/sACCLtd.,officeatCementHouse,121MaharshiKarveRoad, MumbaihavingitsunitinJharkhandatJhinkpaniinSinghbum West ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhandandOthers Respondents CORAM:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioner :Mr.GopalSubramaniam,Sr.Advocate Mr.ChinmoySharma,Advocate Mr.AnandaSen,Advocate Mr.PrateekChadha,Advocate Mr.V.K.Dubey,Advocate ForRespondents :Mr.AjitKumarSinha,Sr.Advocate Mr.AjitKumar,A.A.G. Mr.AmitPawan,Advocate OrderNo.02 Dated:31.10.2015 Seekingquashingofdemandcontainedinletterdated 02.01.2015issuedbytheDistrictMiningOfficer,Chaibasafora sumofRs.2,15,28,53,376/forthepriceofmineralsdispatched between 30.09.2005 to 15.09.2014 from the Limestone mines covering an area of 157.82 acres (63.87 hectares) in VillageKondwa,DistrictWestSinghbhum,andseekingquashing of demand of Rs. 6,66,31,66,663/ for the price of minerals dispatchedbetweentheperiodJanuary,1991toSeptember,2014...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.5190 of 2014 ----- Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Monnet Marg, Mandir Hasuad, P.O. Shankar Nagar, P.S. Telibhanda, District Raipur-492101, Chhattisgarh, through its Assistant General Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory, Sri Naresh Saini, son of Sri T.R. Saini, resident of House No.61, T.A. MCF, Sector-35, P.O. Amar Nagar, P.S. Sarai Khawaza, Faridabad-121001, Haryana. . Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, P.O. N.C.D.C., P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi-834029.2. The General Manager (WS/WC), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. N.C.D.C., P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi-834029.3. Director, (Tech./Oprn.), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. N.C.D.C., P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi-834029. .... Respondents. ------ CORAM : HONBLE MR. J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR297
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, A.C.J. 1. The suit of the plaintiff was based on the ground of default (sic) as contemplated under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 para 3 of the plaint contains a concise statement about the defendant allegedly committing default in payment of rent. It reads as under :-- '3. That, the defendant has duly paid the house rent upto July, 1994 and thereafter the defendant deliberately failed and neglected to pay the house rent in respect of the shop premises to the plaintiff since the month of August, 1994 and onwards inspite of repeated requests and demands.' If there was any doubt about the concise nature of averments regarding the defendant being a defaulter because of his having not paid any rent since August, 1994 para 4 of the plaint went on to aver as under :-- '4. That, the defendant has thus become a defaulter pure and simple in the matter of payment of house rent for more than two months and has thereby re...
Tag this Judgment!