Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 6 enrolment Sorted by: recent Court: jharkhand Year: 2008 Page 5 of about 190 results (0.101 seconds)

Sep 10 2008 (HC)

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jashoda Devi and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-10-2008

Reported in : 2009ACJ1825

1. Heard the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, learned Counsel appearing for the owner of the motor cycle as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants and with their consent both the appeals are disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. The appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim case No. 96/2002 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation for the death of the deceased who was traveling on the two wheeler as a pillion rider.3. Undisputed facts, in brief, are that the deceased Binod Kumar Thakur along with one Mukesh Kumar Sahu was returning to their village on their motor cycle bearing No. JHO 2H-1443 and when they reached near St. Columbus College, Hazaribagh a Maruti Van dashed the motor cycle as a result of which both the occupants of the two wheeler sustained injuries and the pillion rider, Binod Kumar Thakur, ultimately died. The owner of the two ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2008 (HC)

Dr. Fakir Chand Hembram @ Phakir Chand Hembram Vs. State of Jharkhand ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-10-2008

Reported in : [2008(4)JCR245(Jhr)]

..... all the other co-accused persons including the supplier have been granted bail and the fact that on identical allegations, persons accused for the offences under the prevention of corruption act, have been granted anticipatory bail by this court in several other cases, do raise a fresh ground of equity.on the above consideration, the petitioner is directed to deposit the ..... against the petitioner for the offences under sections 409, 420 and 120-b of the indian penal code read with section 13(2)(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act.4. the case registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the dy. s.p. (vigilance), ranchi on 14.10.2004 relates to the purchase of medicines by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2008 (HC)

Synergy Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-10-2008

Reported in : [2008(4)JCR282(Jhr)]

..... officer passes the final order of assessment.under the provisions of the act, the consumer may accept the provisional assessment, pay the amount of provisional bill within seven days from the service of the provisional assessment order and ..... the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has not raised any objection to the provisional bill. the provisions of section 126 of the electricity act enables the consumer to file his objections, against the provisional assessment and also entitles him the benefit of a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the assessment ..... an independent expert agency and only after obtaining the expert's report, could the respondents proceed to take any action under section 126 of the electricity act.4. counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-jharkhand state electricity board. denying and disputing the entire claim and allegations of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2008 (HC)

Utsav Flavours, (a Unit of Hotel Amarjeet Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Union of Indi ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-09-2008

Reported in : [2008(4)JCR288(Jhr)]

..... petitioner submitted his show cause, that was found to be unsatisfactory and under that circumstances, the impugned order was passed and as such respondent can never be said to have acted arbitrarily or illegally.12. having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that show cause notice regarding termination of license was ..... had virtually admitted about the condition of food plaza being unhygienic and once acceptance of breach of one of the conditions was there, the respondent cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in passing the impugned order. thus, i do not find any merit in this application. hence, it is dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2008 (HC)

Shashank Shekhar Singh and anr. Vs. Phulpoti Devi

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-05-2008

Reported in : [2009(1)JCR221(Jhr)]

..... fact that in accordance with the correct interpretation of the order dated 29.2.2008, the order of stay was automatically vacated, in absence of extension for further period, any act or deed in terms of what has been sought to be explained by the appellant, if committed by the respondent, would not amount to contempt of court.12. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 2008 (HC)

Narendra Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-04-2008

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR627(1); 2009CriLJ1012

..... police registered the case as bishtupur p.s. case no. 300 of 2006 under section 498a, 406/34, 307/34 ipc and section 3 and 4 of the dowry prohibition act. the police, after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet, on the basis of which the cognizance for the offence under section 498a, 406, 307/34 ipc was taken by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 2008 (HC)

Pramod Kumar and ors. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-04-2008

Reported in : [2009(1)JCR240(Jhr)]

..... 6.1.2007.2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are diploma holders in mining and mines and were appointed as trainee apprentice under the apprentices act, 1961 in different collieries of b.c.c.l. and after completion of the training, all the petitioners were granted overman's certificate of competency under the mining ..... act and coal mines regulations, 1957 and that after completion of the apprenticeship training, the respondents made advertisement calling for the applications for the selection on the post of junior overman .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2008 (HC)

Gobardhan Mahto Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-02-2008

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR464

..... court may have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute but that dispute must not be an industrial dispute nor relating to the enforcement of any other right under the act.8. so far the decision in the case of baij nath mahato v. bharat coking coal limited (supra) is concerned, the fact appears to be somewhat different ..... authority as the dispute which has been raised here definitely falls within the meaning of industrial disputes as defined in section 2(k) of the industrial disputes act and, therefore, remedy never lies before this court or any other civil court as dispute which is being raised is an industrial dispute arising out of the right ..... other count also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. undisputedly, the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and, during service period when the age of the petitioner got changed on the basis of medical board, he should have raised industrial dispute before the competent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2008 (HC)

Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-02-2008

Reported in : [2008(4)JCR519(Jhr)]

..... ).7. being aggrieved by the order of re-transfer, the petitioner applied for supply of the documents relating to his transfer from dumka to ramgarh under the right to information act and the petitioner was supplied the copies of the note sheets as contained in annexure-9 to the writ petition.8. mr. anil kumar sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2008 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Smt. Usha Sharma and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-02-2008

Reported in : [2008(4)JCR504(Jhr)]

ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.6.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II. Dhanbad in Execution case No. 01 of 2006, directing for issuance of arrest of warrant for detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison.2. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, referring to the order dated 24.1.2008 passed in First Appeal No. 170 of 2005 submitted that the petitioners furnished the list of properties which they proposed to place before the executing Court as security, but even then the impugned order has been passed.3. Mr. Mazumdar, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners filed an application being I.A. No. 3088 of 2006 in the said First Appeal No. 170 of 2005 for stay of further proceedings of Execution Case, in question, but it was rejected as not pressed on 22.3.2007. Thereafter the executing Court was Justified in proceeding with the execution case.4. After hearing the parties and...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //