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.
Anil Kispotta Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2080 of 2012 Anil Kispotta .. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ----- For the Petitioner - Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the State - Mr. J.C to S.C.II ----- 4/17.09.2012 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.3.2012 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner's P.D.S license has been cancelled. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice informing the reasons and without affording any opportunity to represent against the same. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (License and Unification) Order, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as the said Order] as well as the principle of natural justice and is ab initio void. The impugned orde...
Atma Prasad Bhagat Alias Atma Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2400 of 2012 ------ Atma Prasad Bhagat @ Atma Bhagat ... ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. .... ... Opp. Party ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----- 04 /17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in connection with Godda (T) P.S. Case No.165 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.650 of 2007 registered under Sections 467/468/477A/166/120B/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 3/5 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. It reveals from the written report that the other accused namely Rajeshwar Jha, Circle Officer-Cum- Block Development Officer, Godda in connivance with the present petitioner, who was posted as Clerk in the office, had misappro...
Hari Bansh Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ----- L.P.A. No. 330 of 2012 ----- Hari Bansh Lal .... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Niraj Rai, Advocate For the Respondents : ---- ----- Order No.02 Dated 17th September, 2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the petitioner's application for earlier hearing has been allowed and the date has been fixed for final hearing as 13th December, 2012, but in view of the fact stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, we are of the view that the petitioner-appellant yet has option to move an appropriate application before learned Single Judge for hearing the matter in the category of senior citizen, upon which learned Single Judge may consider the prayer of the petitioner-appellant. This L.P.A. is disposed of with the above observation. (Prakash Tatia, C. J.) (Jaya Roy , J.) SI/Anit...
Niranjan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 621 of 2012 ------ Niranjan Kumar Singh ... ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Sarita Kumari .... ... .... ... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the Complainant : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate ----- 07 /17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It reveals from the complaint that the complainant-Smt. Sarita Kumari was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty for want of more dowry and she was driven out from her matrimonial home. It is submitted that after the complainant got employment at Jamtara, she has lodged this case, when the complainant was served with a notice that she had left home without seeking permission from the petitioner. This case has been lodged without filing the F.I.R. Learn...
Ramlal Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2235 o1. Sudha Devi 2. Asha Devi 3. Sulanti Devi .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party --- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. P. K. Nayak For the State : A. P. P. --- 5. 17.09.2012: The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C. It reveals that the petitioners were running Mess under "Chief Minister's Dal Bhat Yojna". On subsidized rate, rice, pulse and wheat were supplied to the petitioners, but they misused it and did not serve the meal to different persons and the register maintained to be signed by the beneficiaries was found irregular. It is submitted that the petitioners who are ladies were not in a position to enforce the customers to sign on the relevant register and this was the irregularity for which this case has been instituted. Learned counsel, appearing for the State, has opposed the prayer. Considering the...
Mritunjay Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.2464of2012 MritunjayKumarSingh. ... ... ... ... ... ...Petitioner Versus 1. TheStateofJharkhand.2. AmritNarainSingh. ... ... ... ... ... ...Opp.Parties CORAM: THEHONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY. ForthePetitioner: Mr.KailashPrasadDeo,Advocate. Mr.GirishMohanSingh,Advocate. Mr.AshishKumar,Advocate. FortheState: A.P .P. 03/17.09.2012 Itrevealsfromthecomplaintthatpetitionerhadtakenloanfrom thefatherofthecomplainantintheyear2002andtorefundthesaidamounthe hadissuedcertaincheques,whichstooddishonoured.Againstdishonourofthose cheques, complaint case was filed by the complainant side. To rebut the allegation,thepetitioneralsofiledacomplaintcaseandthosecomplaintcases endedincompromisewithcertainconditions.Whenthoseconditionswerenot fulfilled,thiscasehasbeenlodgedandthepoliceafterinvestigationsubmitted finalformandthenprotestpetitionwasfiled,whichwasdismissedunderSection 203 Cr.P.C. and thereafter revision was preferred where the complainant succeededandcog...
Md NizamuddIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.2380of2012 Md.Nizamuddin@NizamuddinAnsari. ... ... ...Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Party CORAM: THEHONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY. ForthePetitioner: Mrs.SmitaMitra,Advocate. FortheState: A.P .P. 03/17.09.2012 ItrevealsfromthewrittenreportthatoneAdityaPrasadhadtaken loanofRs.12.50/lakhandhehasfurnishedcertainTitleDeedwithrespectto theproperty.Thepetitionerstoodguarantoragainsttheloanadvancedinfavour ofsaidAdityaPrasad.Incourseofverificationthedocumentfurnishedbythe accusedpersonswerefoundforged. Itissubmittedthatthepetitionerwassimplyaguarantorandhe hadnotfurnishedforgeddocumentfortheguarantee. CounselfortheStatehasopposedtheprayerbutconcedesthatin thecasediaryitisnotindicatedwhetherfurnishingofsaidforgedTitleDeedwas knowntothepetitioneratthetimehestoodguarantor. Intheaforesaidfactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thepetitioner isdirectedtosurrenderbeforethecourtbelowwithinthreeweeksfromtoday andifhedoessoheshall...
Rakesh Chakraborty Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5248 of 2012 ------ Rakesh Chakraborty . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Md.Sajid Yunus, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 6/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Mandu (West Bokaro) P.S. Case No. 85 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 1313 of 2011, S.T No.526 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted his own brother by Garasa, causing his death. The bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 16.11.2011 in B.A No. 7323 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the pet...
Etwa Oraown Alias Atwa Uraown Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5892 of 2012 ------ Etwa Oraown @ Atwa Uraown . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Din Dayal Saha, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 3/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the complainant even though notice has been served upon him. The petitioner has been made accused in P.C.R Case No.319 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation against the petitioner to have forged the sale deed in his favour with respect to the land of the complainant. The complaint petition itself shows that there was a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., between the parties for the possession of the land, in question. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the...
Saroj Devi and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6888 of 2005 --- Saroj Devi & others --- --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & others --- ---- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioners: None For the State: JC to SC-1 --- 7/ 17.09.2012 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners in spite of revised call. However, counsel for the respondent State is present.2. Petitioners have challenged the part of the order dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure-5) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 175 of 2005 and for further directing the respondents to pay the admitted dues to the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated.3. From perusal of the aforesaid order and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi has decided the said case on merits allowing payment of Rs. 53,394.10 towards transportation charges as well as releasing Rs. 50,000/- being t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »