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.
Hira Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHAKHAND,RANCHI Cont(C) No. 95 of 2009 Hira Devi . .. Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. . . ..Respondent(s) CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. M.M. Pal Sr. Advocate. For the State of Bihar : MR. S.P. Roy Advocate 18/17.9.2012 By order dated 5.9.2012 the respondents authorities were directed to undertake verification exercise required under requisite rules within a period of one week and the petitioner was also asked to cooperate with the Treasury Officer for necessary verification which was required to be undertaken by the Treasury Officer. Accordingly, the said exercise has been undertaken by the Respondent-Treasury Officer and Banker Cheque bearing No. 125382 dated 11.9.2012 issued by the S.B.I Araria for the month of August, 2012 amounting Rs.6075/- has been prepared in the name of the petitioner and the same has been handed over to the petitioner who is present before this Court and the petitioner has accepted the ...
Baby Kumari Alias Baby Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2123 of 2012 Baby Kumari @ Baby Devi .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr. S.P.Sinha 2. For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 17.09.2012 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with complaint case no. 1253 of 2009 for the offence registered under sections 498A/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation in the complaint that Ahilya Devi was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty for want of more dowry by her husband and in laws. It is submitted that the husband Kasinath Modi has been granted bail vide ABA No. 1759 of 2011. The petitioner happens to be the second wife of the said Kasinath Modi. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Since the husband has been granted anticipatory bail...
Bishun Bhuiyan Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3347 of 2012 Bishun Bhuiyan ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prem Prakash, A.P.P. ------ 6/ 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 Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 10 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No. 64 of 1999 (S.T. No. 65 of 2012). The case relates to recovery of 5 quantiles of Khair wood from the house of the petitioner. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Bishun Bhuiyan, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureti...
Ramakant Tiwary 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. 3177 of 2012 Ramakant Tiwary .. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Others .. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ----- For the Petitioner - Mr. D.K.Jaiswal For the Respondents - Mr. J.C to S.C-II ----- 9/17.9.2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition in order to approach the State Government praying for relaxation of age, as has been given to the candidates appearing in the examinations conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, as per the State Government resolution dated 21.1.2003. Permission, as sought for, is granted. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn. S.K (NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J)...
M/S Metalite India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3869 of 2010 M/s Metalite India Ltd. petitioner -Versus- Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents. ------ CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. CGC. ------ I.A. No.2771 o3. 17.09.2012: In this I.A. the petitioner has prayed for permission to withdraw W.P.(C) No.3869/2010. It has been submitted that the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court and, as such, they do not want to pursue this writ petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same. The respondents have no objection. Considering the above, this I.A. is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw W.P.(C) No.3869 of 2010. I.A. No.2771 of 2012 stands disposed of. (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) W.P.(C) No.3869 of 2010 In view of the order dated 17.9.2012 passed in I.A. No.2771 of 2012, this writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Shamim/...
Deepak Bansal 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.706 of 2011 Deepak Bansal and others..Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another.Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners :Mr.K.P.Deo For the State :A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.P.A.S.Pati 6/ 17.9.12. Pursuant to the order dated 5.9.2012, opposite party no.2 is present in the Court but the petitioner is absent. However, it was stated by Mr.Sanjay Bansal, elder brother of the petitioner that since the petitioner was not well, he could not come to the Court today. However, he prays that the matter be posted after one month so that in the meantime, petitioner may make up his mind for getting the case compromised. Upon which, it was stated by the opposite party no.2 that if the date is fixed after one month then other side must make it point that on the next date the petitioner remain present so that dispute be resolved on that date. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, let this matter ...
Sanoj Kumar Paswan Alias Sanoj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5353 of 2012 ------ Sanoj Kumar Paswan @ Sanoj Kumar . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 4/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 2015 of 2011, S.T No.169 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code. From the F.I.R, it appears that the case relates to bank dacoity and it appears that miscreants had come on motorcycles to commit dacoity. The registration numbers of the motorcycles have been mentioned in the F.I.R. The impugned order shows that the petitioner was apprehended in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner and the motorcycle used in the crime has been recovered. I...
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...
Om Prakash Bharti and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.801of2012 OmPrakashBharti&ors. Appellants Versus TheStateofJharkhand Respondent CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRASHANTKUMAR FortheAppellants :Mr.B.M.Tripathi,Sr.Advocate FortheState :Mr.S.S.Prasad,A.P.P. 06/Dated:17 th September,2012 OralOrder PerD.N.Patel,J.:1. Thepresentappealhasalreadybeenadmittedvideorderdated6thAugust, 2012.2. Learnedcounselappearingonbehalfoftheappellantssubmittedthatthe appellantsarenotpressingtheprayerforsuspensionofsentence.3. Registryisdirectedtogetthepaperbookswithneatlytypedcopies of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and other documents prepared, asrequiredunderRules190 and 191 of the Jharkhand High CourtRules,2001. (D.N.Patel,J.) (PrashantKumar,J.) Ajay/...
Dilip Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1920 of 2007 Dilip Kumar Verma . Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. . Respondents. CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH. For the Petitioner: - M/s Saurav Arun & Deepak Kr. Dubey For the Respondents: - M/s Shankar Lal Agrawal. 09/17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2007(Annexure-8) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East in PLA Case No. 35 of 2006, which was preferred by the respondent no. 5, directing him to pay the amount of award of Rs. 2,25,000/- within two months failing which the same shall be realised alongwith interest @ 14 % per annum in accordance with law. The order impugned is challenged on behalf of the petitioner on the following ground:- (i) that the petitioner does work under the subcontract executed by the J.S.E.B. or J.U.S.C.O with the Respondent No. 3 and thus, petitioner does not fall under the P...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »