Jharkhand Court September 2012 Judgments
Bhola Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4719 of 2012 Bhola Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Chakraborty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. ------ 4/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Daltonganj Rail P.S. Case No. 4 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 265 of 2011 (S.T. No. 128 of 2011). The case relates to abduction of the Stationmaster by four unknown culprits and the case was instituted against unknown. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has neither been identified nor named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State has oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Bhan Vs. Manju Kumari and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P(C) No. 4565 of 2012 Sanjeev SwaroopBhan .. Petitioner(s) Versus Manju Kumari&Ors.... . . ..Respondent(s) CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha 3/17.9.2012 The present petition is filed against the order dated 6.6.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge III Jamshedpur in Money Suit No. 20 of 2007 whereby the application filed on 7.5.2012 by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 has been allowed and leave has been granted to the petitioner to examine herself as witness at belated stage . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and other materials produced on record but the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the learned court below has rightly and properly appreciated the fact that for the mistake or lacuna on the part of the lawyer, the parties should not be allowed to suffer or deprive of to put forward their cas...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Priya Sahu Vs. Durbasa Sahu
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. Tr. Petition (C) No. 27 of 2012 Smt. Priya Sahu Petitioner -V e r s u s- Durbasa Sahu Opposite Party. CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Petitioner : - M/s. V. Kumari, M. Prakash & T. Kumar Advocates. 03/17.09.2012 The present petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 17 of 2012 filed by the husband of the petitioner from the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa to the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla, where the present petitioner is residing. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the papers. Issue urgent notice to the sole Opposite Party both by Registered Post with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week. Notice is made returnable by 11th October, 2012. Put up this case on 11th October, 2012. (P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Bhushan Jha and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1018 of 2012 Birendra Bhushan Jha and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand & another ... Opposite Parties Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr.Subodh Kumr Jha For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 17.09.2012 It reveals from the earlier orders that registered notice was returned unserved and another Bench of this Court has accepted the return of notice as validly served, but again another Bench of this Court has directed to file requisites of notice afresh, but again the said order was recalled. I feel that valid service of notice is required and the report of the process server has not yet been received. In view of the above, fresh notice is required to be issued. In the circumstances, let notice be issued afresh for which requisites filed in terms of the earlier order is already on record. Till the next date, interim order dated 3.8.2012 shall continue. Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)...
Tag this Judgment!Arati Chatterjee Vs. Nabi Rashul and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P(C) No. 3386 of 2012 Arati Chatterjee .. Petitioner(s) Versus Nabi Rashul and Ors.... . . ..Respondent(s) CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Laik 3/17.9.2012 The present petitioner by way of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for setting aside the order dated 17.4.2012 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Devision) No.1 Dhanbad in Title(Eviction) Suit no. 31 of 2002 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant to recall the order dated 23.6.2008 has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as other documents filed with this petition. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that more than sufficient opportunity has been given to the present petitioner/defendant to adduced the evidence. Stage of the plaintiffs' evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Zonal Manager,life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.338 o1. Zonal Manager, namely, Mr.Rabati Ranjan Dash 2. Senior Divisional Manager, namely, Mr.B.K.Chakraborty...Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another.Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners :Mr.Sachin Kumar For the State :A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.Arbind Kumar Jha 9/ 17.9.12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learnedcounsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 5.12.2007 passed in a complaint bearing C-1 case no.46 of 2007 whereby and whereunder petitioners were summoned under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial for an offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition is that Upendra Kumar Singh, husband of the complainant was having Life Insurance Policy bearing no.553716744. During subsist...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Sahara India Commercial Co Vs. Uday Shankar Paul and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 43 of 2012 M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Appellants(s) Versus Uday Shankar Paul and Ors. Respondent(s). --- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT --- For the appellant(s) : Mr. P..C. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. For the respondent(s) : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, A.K. Tiwari and R. Kumar, Adv. --- Order No.13 Dated 17th September, 2012. I.A. No. 2762 of 2012 This interlocutory application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking intervention in the first appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as respondents seeks two weeks' time to file counter of this interlocutory application. Time, as prayed for, is granted. Put up this case on 01st October, 2012. Till the next date of listing, ad interim order dated 23.3.2012 shall continue. (P.P. Bhatt, J.) Anu/-...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Singh and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
W.P. 7493 o07. 17.09.2012 As prayed for, two weeks time is granted for filing rejoinder. (Prakash Tatia, C.J) (Jaya Roy, J.)...
Tag this Judgment!Dr Raj Kumar Singh and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2154 o1. Dr. Raj Kumar Singh 2. Surya Bhusan .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party --- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar For the State : A. P. P. For the Informant : Mr. Mukesh Kumar --- 5. 17.09.2012: The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. It reveals form the written report that the petitioners executed an agreement for sale in favour of the informant against sale of land which was standing in the name of Madan Mohan Sood. On the basis of that agreement, the informant executed another agreement in favour of another purchaser. When the land was transferred to the actual purchaser by the actual landlord, this dispute has been arose between middlemen and this case has been instituted. It is submitted that the land has already been sold to the actual purchaser by the actual landlord and this case has...
Tag this Judgment!Mantu Yadav and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.621of2012 1.MantuYadav 2.MaheshYadav 3.PramodYadav 4.BechanYadav 5.ArvindYadav@Dhulwa 6.SharmanandYadav@SharmaYadav 7.PermanandYadav@Parmatma 8.UddinYadav@LutanYadav@LudanYadav@Lutan 9.HariYadav Appellants Versus TheStateofJharkhand ... ... ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRASHANTKUMAR FortheAppellants: Mr.RajeshKumar FortheRespondent: Mr.H.K.Shikarwar,A.P.P. 03/Dated:17 th September,2012 PerD.N.Patel,J1) Present appeal has been admitted by 2nd July 2012. Records and ProceedingsoftheSessionsTrialNo.47of1998wascalledfor,forappreciation ofargumentforsuspensionofsentence,awardedbythetrialcourt.2) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidencesonrecord,itappearsthatincidenthastakenplaceon16th ofAugust 1997at8:30A.M.ThereareallegationsintheF.I.R.againsttotal11accused,out ofwhich,originalaccusedNo.10hascausedfiringupontheinjuredeyewitness whoisP.W.8,and,originalaccusedNo.11hascaus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »