Jharkhand Court October 2011 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.
Bhupinder Singh Vs. Trilok Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.1529of2011 BhupinerSingh. .Petitioner. Versus TrilokSingh. ....Respondent. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI ForthePetitioner : Mr.AnandaSen,Advocate. FortheRespondent: None 06/11.10.2011: Aftersomeargument,Mr.AnandaSen,learnedcounsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, seeks permission to withdrawthiswritpetition. Permissionisaccorded. Accordingly,thiswritpetitionisdismissedaswithdrawn. (NarendraNathTiwari,J.)Sanjay/...
Ravi Kumar Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6829 of 2011 ------Ravi Kumar Paswan .. Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.S.K.Srivastava, A.P.P. -----2/ 11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Kenduadih P.S case no.72 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No.2314 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 366A of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation against the petitioner to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant. However, it appears that the statement of victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C , from which, it appears that the victim girl has not even taken the name of this petitioner. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Ravi Kumar Paswan is directed to be released o...
Malay Pal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6410 of 2011 Malay Pal ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : M/s Indrajit Sinha & A.K.Sah, Advocates For the State : Mr. M.B.Lal, A.P.P.------THE3/ 11.10.2011 Prosecution.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the The petitioner has been made accused for the offence underSection 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 800 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 3914 of 2006 (S.T. No. 580 of 2010). The case relates to abduction for ransom of one Anil Singh. The said Anil Singh was recovered and in his statement before the police, he has named the petitioner to be one of the culprits. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Malay Pal, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.R.Kr.( H. C. Mishra, J.)...
Aarti Devi Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.4341of2008 AartiDevi ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Respondents Versus TheSteelAuthorityofIndiaLimitedandothers ... CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: None FortheRespondents: J.C.ToMr.RajivRanjan 06/Dated:11October,2011 th 1) 2) No body appears for the petitioner nor the matter is mentionedpreviouslyalso. On30.8.2011also,nobodyappearedforthepetitioner.On 06.9.2011thematterwasadjournedwhenthelearnedcounselfor thepetitionersubmittedthathehastoseekinstructionfromhis client.Todayalsowhenthematteriscalledout,nobodyappearson behalfofthepetitioner. 3) Hence,thiswritpetitionisdismissedfordefault.Manoj/cp.2(D.N.Patel,J)...
State of Bihar Vs. C.Mahto and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A No. 45 of 1991 (R) State of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto & Anr. With F.A. No. 46 of 1991 (R) State of Bihar v. Soma Debya & Ors. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, G.A For the Respondents : --Order No. 65 -----Dated 11th October, 2011Learned counsel for the State submits that State wants to file a detailed affidavit so as to indicate what is the latest position with respect to expeditious disbursement of the compensation to the persons whose lands have been acquired. Since the matter is a very old one and large number of persons are involved, the State should be very careful and should not seek further adjournment. However, in view of the involvement of large number of facts, time is granted and the matters be placed on 8th November, 2011 immediately after Dipawali Vacation. (Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)Dey/-Alankar-...
Shree Niwash Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.5740of2008 ShreeNiwashPrasadSingh... ... Versus TheStateofJharkhandandothers ... ... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: Mr.R.P .Srivastava FortheRespondents: J.C.ToG.P .III 06/Dated:11October,2011 th I.A.No.1866of2011 1) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this amendment petition is hereby allowed as it will not change the nature of the original writ petition. On the contrary, this amendment will facilitate the Court in arriving at a correct conclusion for resolving the disputes raised between the parties. Necessary amendment shall be carried out in red ink in the original writ petition. 2) I.A. No.1866 of 2011 stands disposed of. 3) Put up this case after two weeks. ... ... ... Petitioner(D.N.Patel,J)Manoj/cp.0...
Employers in Relation to the M Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 121 of 2007 Employers in relation to the management of Bhuli Township Administration of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited ...... ... Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors..... ------CORAM: .....Petitioner Opposite PartiesHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta For the Opp. Parties : --Order No. 30 -----Dated 11th October, 2011Learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy as to how the contempt petition can survive because the relevant order was passed by the Court as back as on 2.9.2003 and it appears from the record that cognizance of contempt had not been taken and even on 20.08.2008, it was observed that how the contempt petition was maintainable as the Opp. Party, whohas been impleaded in the contempt, was not a party to the appeal. Put up this case after Dipawali Vacation.(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)Dey/-Alankar-...
Badal Gorai @ Galu Gorai Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6907 of 2011 Badal Gorai @ Galu Gorai ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K.Prasad, A.P.P.------THE2/ 11.10.2011 Prosecution.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the The petitioner has been made accused for the offence underSections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 63 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 839 of 2010. The bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merits by order dated 30.6.2011 in B.A. No. 3824 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail of this petitioner submitting that the petitioner is in custody for about one year. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner, Badal Gorai @ Galu Gorai o...
Lalku Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand Thr. Vigila
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 5745 of 2011 With B.A No. 4603 of 2011 ------Lalku Mahto .. Petitioner (B.A NO.5745/11) Ajit Kumar Mahto ....... Petitioner (B.A NO.4603/11) -VersusThe State of Jharkhand through Vigilance...... Opposite Party -----CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.Atanu Banerjee, Advocate (B.A No.5745/11) M/s.A.K.Kashyap, Sr.Advocate, Lina Shakti, Advocate. (B.A No.4603/11) For the State : Mr.Nilesh Kumar, Spl.P.P., Vigilance. -----6/ 11.10.2011 Both the aforesaid cases arise out of the same case and they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special P.P for the Vigilance. The petitioners have been made accused in Vigilance P.S case no.68 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No.85 of 2010, for the offence under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/ 13(2) read with 13 (1) (D) (C ) of Prevention of Corrup...
Heera Singh and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6949 of 2011 1. Heera Singh 2. Champa Devi Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Ms. Lina Shakti A. P.P. ..... PetitionersFor the Petitioners For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under SectionsProsecution. 376/313 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Manatu (Tarhasi) P.S. Case no.74 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.1857 of 2009. The police case has been instituted on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant in which she has stated that about ten months prior to the date of complaint, the petitioner no.1 had committed rape upon her, who is a deserted lady and having a daughter of about ten years. It appears from the complaint itself that thereafter the complainant started living with the petitioner as his wife knowing full well tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »