Jharkhand Court September 2012 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.
JalaluddIn Mian Alias JalaluddIn Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4782 of 2012 Jalaluddin Mian @ Jalaluddin Ansari ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S.Sahay, A.P.P. ------ 3/ 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 394 of the Indian Penal Code, charge having been framed under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 96 of 2002 (S.T. No. 379 of 2002). The petitioner was on bail and the impugned order shows that his bail was canceled on 1.2.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner has been remanded in this case on 13.2.2012 and he is in custody since then. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Jalaluddin Mian @ Jalaluddin Ansari, on...
Aklim Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5544 of 2012 ------ Aklim Ansari . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 3/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Bhawanthpur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2012 corresponding to G.R No. 764 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 366, 376, 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was instituted on the basis of the complaint petition, which was sent for institution of the police case. It is stated in the complaint petition that the complainant-informant and the petitioner both fled away to Gujrat and they lived there as husband and wife but subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this ca...
Hridya Nand Pandey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4373 of 2012 Hridya Nand Pandeya ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. (Dr.) S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Dubey, A.P.P. ------ 3/ 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 offences under Sections 414/120(B)/413 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Harla P.S. Case No. 73 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 520 of 2006 (S.T. No. 115 of 2010). The petitioner was already on bail and the impugned shows that the petitioner was declared absconder on 14.3.2012 and subsequently, the service report of permanent warrant against the petitioner had been received in the Court below, which showed that the petitioner was in custody in connection with another case. Thereafter, on the basis of production warrant, the petitione...
Pancham Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.865of2012 1.PanchamSingh 2.RamuSingh Appellants Versus TheStateofJharkhand ... ... ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRASHANTKUMAR FortheAppellant: Mr.A.K.Kashyap,Sr.Advocate Mr.RaviKumarSingh FortheRespondent: Mr.V .S.Sahay,A.P.P. 04/Dated:17 th September,2012 PerD.N.Patel,J1) Present appeal is admitted.2) Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2006 is called for from the trial court, so as to reach this Court on or before next date of hearing, for appreciation of argument for suspension of sentence.3) Matter is adjourned on 8th October 2012. (D.N.Patel,J) (PrashantKumar,J) Raman/Binit...
Jai Prakash Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2659 of 2012 M/s Panch Sheel Udyog Sonari. ...... Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia For the Respondents: j.C to Mr. Ratnesh Kumar ------ Order No. 10 Dated 17th September, 2012 Learned counsel for the respondents is since sick, therefore, time has been sought for. As prayed for, put up this case after two weeks. Till then, the interim order dated 18th May, 2012 shall remain continued. (Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-...
Mallu Choudhary Alias Dinesh Chodhary Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.1779 of 2012 Mallu Choudhary @ Dinesh Choudhary.. Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another..Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner: Mr.R.M.Singh For the State :A.P.P 2.17.9.12. Issue notice be issued to the opposite party no.2 to show cause as to why this application be not admitted and/or, if possible, be not disposed of at the admission stage itself, for which requisites for issuance of notice under registered cover with A/D must be filed within one week. Put up this case after three weeks to enable learned counsel appearing for the State to file counter affidavit. Until further order, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner of Chirkunda Maithan O.P. P.S case no.2 of 2011 (G.R.No.19 of 2011), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/...
Md.Shamim Akhtar and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.686 o1. Md. Shamim Akhtar 2. Md. Jamil Akhtar 3. Md. Sagir Alam 4. Shakila Bano 5. Afrozi Khatoon Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Sinha, Advocate For the State : APP ----- 05/17.09.2012: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a case was lodged by the informant for the offence under Section 498A/34/323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but just on the next date, the parties came to certain settlement whereby it was agreed that all the articles, given during marriage, shall be returned by the petitioners and in fact, those articles had already been returned and at the same time, it was agreed upon that if any case would have been lodged by any of the party, it would not pressed by them. Thus, virtually the parties have come to the point of compromise. Since nob...
Rajendra Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 2154 of 2011 Rajendra Mahto ... ... Petitioner Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 2541 of 2011 Kama Munda and others ...... Petitioners Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ------ For the Petitioners: Mr. Shreeprakash Jha, Sr. Adv. (In W.P(PIL)No.2154/2011) Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Petitioners: M/s Chandra Deo Singh, Adv. (In W.P(C) No.2541/2011) Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sahu, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. R.R. Mishra(G.P.II) (In both cases) Mr. Ramprakash Singh, J.C. to G.P.II Mr. Sameer Saurabh (for Intervenor) ------ Reportable Dated 17th September 2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.2154 of 2011 has been filed by one Rajendra Mahto questioning the action of the respondents whereby the respondents have decided to const...
Arati Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 830 of 2009 Arati Prasad ... Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand & Another Opposite Parties CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, Advocate. For the State : - Mr. Shekhar Sinha, APP. For the Opp. Party No. 2: - Mr. Shailesh, Advocate. 06/14.09.2012 This application has been filed for quashing order dated 14.06.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 683 of 2007 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act only with respect to Cheque No. 277024 dated 05.03.2007. It appears from the impugned order that petitioner had given notice only with respect to non-payment of amount relating to Cheque No. 277024 dated 05.03.2007. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has only cause of action in relation to the said cheque. Thus, I find no illegality in the order of the court below, ...
M/S Baba Construction Office a Vs. India Tourism Development Corp
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C. No. 6652 of 2011 M/s Baba Construction ..Petitioner Versus The India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.& Others .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate ----- 04/17.09.2012 The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to make payment of the admitted dues of the work done by the petitioner in pursuance of the work order dated 26.05.2004 for composite development of work at Hundru Fall. It has been stated that after getting the work order, the petitioner completed the work, but the respondents have not paid the admitted dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/-. The petitioner has brought on record an information furnished by the department under Right to Information Act stating therein that the reason for delay in payment is non availability of funds. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner arises out of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »