Jharkhand Court July 2004 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.
Binod Kumar Chirania Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through, Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR126(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.4.2003, whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi rejected the petitioner's case for his discharge for the offence under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 460, 471 and 477A of IPC and under Section 13(a)(c) and (d) of the PC Act in connection with CBI, RC Case No. 50 (A)/96.2. According to the petitioner, after investigation, the allegation levelled is that the Company, namely, Trade Well (India) Pvt. Ltd. of which the petitioner was a Director which supplied medicines received payment of Rs. 3,99,680/- whereas the actual supply made by him is only Rs. 2,76,504/- and a sum of Rs. 1,23,176/-has been described as fictitious supply. They only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the Company was represented by the petitioner in the capacity of Director. Further, according to petitioner, the text of allegation and the materials on record as collected during investigation sh...
Jogya Oraon Vs. Dinabandhu Oraon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar12; [2004(4)JCR67(Jhr)]
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This proceeding is initiated by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an Order of the Lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2003 extending the time for defendants to incorporate the amendments to the written statement earlier allowed by the trial Court but not actually incorporated and also rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs to appoint a receiver for the suit properties specifically for harvesting the crops.2. The Court below took the view that in view of the dismissal of the Suit and in the circumstances it was not proper to exercise its discretion to appoint a receiver as sought for by the plaintiff-appellant. As regards the application made by the defendants under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extending the time for incorporation of the amendments to the Written Statement already allowed by the trial Court, the Court took the view that since it was a case where it was an omission to c...
Anima Priya Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR79(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, who had appeared in the preliminary examination of Joint Combined Entrance Competitive Examination-2004, of which the result was published in the newspapers on 15.6.2004, and was not declared successful, has filed the present writ application for direction to respondent No. 3 Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board for declaration of the result of the said preliminary examination in terms of Clause 5.2.4 read with Schedule 1, 2 and 3 of the Prospectus. The further prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner to have qualified in the said preliminary examination and to allow her to appear in the main examination of Joint Combined Entrance Competitive Examination-2004, which is going to be held from 4.7.2004.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Board has committed several irregularities and illegalities in publication of the result and if, the...
Damodar Kumar Kashera and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4396; [2004(4)JCR519(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. The petitioners were running an unauthorized and unregistered lottery house, functioning under the name and style of Gumla Enterprises. Annexure-1 shows the terms and conditions by which every member has to pay monthly Installments. According to the informant, he was a member of the Enterprises and his son was also a member of that Enterprises who had paid two and three installments and thereafter had not made payment as per the scheme. The allegation was that the petitioners along with their partners were carrying illegal lottery and they were also given some awards but the amounts were misappropriate by them, therefore. FIR was lodged under Sections 294A, 406, 420/34 of the IPC. The learned Court below found that the petitioner's company collected Rs. 99 lakhs out of which Rs. 27 lakhs has been spent and rest amount i.e. Rs. 72 lakhs has not been deposited with the UCO Bank rather only two lakhs were deposited in the UCO Bank in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›