Jharkhand Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav Alias Laloo Prasad Alias Laloo Prasad ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2762
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J. 1. By the Court.--Both the applications, namely, B.A. No. 10206 of 2001 and B.A. No. 2 of 2002 have been heard together as they are arisen out of the RC 68(A) of 1996 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(a)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The short facts of the case as alleged is that the Patna High Court while disposing off the writ petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos. 1617 of 1996. 1642 of 1996, 1644 of 1996. 1656 of 1996, 456 of 1996 (R), 602 of 1996 (R), 675 of 1996 (R) and 687 of 1996 (R) directed the Central Bureau of Investigation vide order dated 11.3.1996.......'To enquire and scrutinise all cases of excess withdrawal and expenditure into the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Bihar during the periods 1977-78 to 1995-96.' On the basis of the said order, the Central Bureau of Investigation took up ...
Indian Bank Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3300
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Vide order dated 9th February, 2000, the learned 2nd Asstt. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, discharged the opp. party No. 2, Jai Prakash Singh, on the ground that sufficient material did not exist for proceeding against him in the trial, being session Trial No. 201/1999. The respondent No. 2. J.P. Singh, along with other accused persons were facing trial in the aforesaid sessions trial case for the offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 436 read with Section 120B and 34 I.P.C. During the course of trial, the opp. party No. 2 presented a petition in the trial Court for his discharge and it is on this application of opp. party No. 2 that the learned trial Court, by a detailed speaking order and on consideration of the material available, discharged the opp. party No. 2 holding that 'there was no sufficient ground for proceeding' against him. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present revision application in this Court which, even though ear...
Awash Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1115
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. By the Court.--In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order communicated vide letter No. 973 dated 16.8.2000 issued by respondent No. 4. the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur whereby he has directed the petitioner to deposit royalty and penalty in respect of the materials purchased from different sources for construction of buildings and apartments.2. The petitioner's case is that he is engaged in promoting and developing the residential and commercial housing complex in the town of Jamshedpur. It is stated that at no point of time the petitioner was engaged in any works contract with the Department of either the State Government or the Central Government or any other undertaking for any construction work. The Minor Minerals like sand and grabels used by the petitioner-firm for construction of the buildings are pur-chased from different sellers in the locality. Those sellers/suppliers are either the lessee, sub-lessee, agent, manag...
Hindustan Copper Ltd./Indian Copper Complex Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR661
M.T. Eqbal, J.1. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.3.2001 passed by Circle Officer, Ghatshila, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners for mutation of petitioners land and dismissed the mutation cases filed by the petitioners.2. Petitioners claimed to have purchased the land in question by virtue of registered deeds of sale. After purchase the petitioners applied for mutation of the land by filing four applications which were registered as Mutation Case Nos. 323/2000-2001. 322/2000-2001, 325/2000-2001 and 324/ 2000-2001. The Circle Officer, Ghatshila rejected the applications and refused to mutate the respective lands on the ground that the sale deeds were executed outside the State.3. Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in similar case filed by Smt. Bela Pandey being CWJC No. 2903/98R this Court quashed the order of the Circle Officer and allowed the writ application i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›