Jharkhand Court March 2013 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.
RobIn Kumar Bardhan Vs. Director Planning Special Rail
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S)No.7480of2011 RobinKumarBardhan .... .... .... Petitioner Versus Director,PlanningSpecialRailwayBoard,NewDelhi .... .... .... Respondent CORAM :HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.JayPrakashPandey,Advocate FortheRespondent :Mr.RamNivasRoy,Advocate Mr.JalisurRahman,Advocate th OrderNo.12 Dated,6 March,2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. Petitioners O.A. was dismissed vide order dated 5th February,2010bytheC.A.T.,PatnaBench,(CircuitBench,Ranchi) afterobservingthatpetitionercouldnotmakeclearwhetherhewas givenappointmentandalsohecouldnotmakeoutwhyhewasnot allowedtoworkandhedidnotproduceanyappointmentorder. Reply has been filed by the respondent to indicate that the petitionerwasgivenappointmentoncontractualbasisintheyear 2007andforshortperiodheworked,andthereafter,hedidnot turnup,therefore,hiscontractualappointmentwascancelled. Wedonotfindanymeritinthispetition.Accordingly, thispetitionisdismissed. (PrakashTatia,...
Dukhan Beldar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 882 of 2013 Dukhan Beldar @ Dukhan Chouhan ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------ 4/ 06.03.2013 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 342, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 266 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2807 of 2012. There is allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted and injured the husband of the informant by firearm. Bail application of this petitioner was earlier dismissed as withdrawn after some arguments by order dated 31.10.2012 in B.A. No. 7619 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail of the petitioner submitting that he is in custody since 24.7.2...
Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. Road Transport and Highways
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6067 of 2012 Sangeeta Agrawal ....Petitioner Versus The Union of India & others Respondents -------- Coram: THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE P.P. BHATT -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Md. Shamim Akhtar & Sweety Topno, Advocates /6.3.2013: Petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction commanding upon the respondents to consider the objection/representation submitted by the petitioner (Annexure-2) before the competent authority i.e. respondent No.5 and to follow the due procedure provided under law and decide the objection/representation (Annexure-2) submitted by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents and perused the material placed on record. It appears that the petitioner's land is going to be acquired, pursuant...
Puitu Mahto Alias Punu Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.957of2012 PuituMahto@PunnuMahto Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand ... ... ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.CHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellant: Mr.AnandKrSinha FortheRespondent: Mr.AmreshKumar,A.P.P. 07/Dated:March,06,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J I.A.No.1137of20131) ThisinterlocutoryapplicationunderSection5oftheLimitationAct hasbeenfiledbythe appellantforcondonationofdelayof99daysin preferringtheinstantappeal.2) Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs3,4and5oftheinterlocutoryapplication,thereisreasonable reasonsforcondonationofdelayof99daysinpreferringtheappeal. 3)Accordingly,I.A.No.1137of2013isallowedanddelayinfilingthe instantappealiscondoned.4) Registry is directed to enlist the matter under the heading 'For Admission'on11.03.203. (D.N.Patel,J) Manoj/cp.2 (S.Chandrashekhar,J)...
Changez Khan Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1012 of 2013 Changez Khan ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha For the State :A. P.P. ----- 02/06.03.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 395, 397, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Daltonganj Rail P.S. Case No. 2 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 56 of 2012. The case relates to train dacoity and in view of the fact that the looted mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner, earlier the bail application of this petitioner was rejected by order dated 18.07.2012 in B. A. No. 4517 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner Changez Khan on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the ...
Shahid Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 1198 of 2013 Shahid Ansari ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Renu Bala, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 06.03.2013 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 392 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Netarhat P.S. Case No. 6 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 324 of 2012. The case relates to robbery. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Shahid Ansari, 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 sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Vishal Gaurav, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Latehar, or his successor, in connection with Netarhat P.S. Cas...
Tata Steel Limited (Previously Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 37 of 2010 with I.A. No.466 of 2013 Tata Steel Limited ...... Appellant Vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise & another ...... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ------ For the Appellant: M/s D.V. Pathy For the Respondents: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. ------ Order No.10 Dated 06th March, 2013. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. List this matter for hearing at its own turn. However, no ground is made out for interim relief and, therefore, interim prayer is rejected. I.A. No. 466 of 2013 is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia,C.J.) (Jaya Roy, J.) Sudhir...
Rahul Distributors Through Its Proprietor Naresh Kumar Rastogi Vs. Hea ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6181 of 2012 Rahul Distributors Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Respondents CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH. For the Petitioner : - M/s Ananda Sen, Advocate For the Respondents :- JC to AG 02/06.03.2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of this instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to pay the admitted dues amounting to Rs. 28,86,993/- alongwith interest on account of supply of medicine in the office of respondent no. 3, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Latehar. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the letter dated 20.06.2011 contained at Annexure-3, to submit that the amounts claimed by the petitioner are not in dispute. It is further submitted that even the respondents in their counter affidavit in para-16 have stated that requests has been made for allocation of fund and the moment the fund will be allocated, the same will ...
Mantu Mahato Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 983 of 2013 Mantu Mahato ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Tapas Roy For the State :A. P.P. ----- 03/06.03.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 328, 302, 309 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 12 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 324 of 2012 (S. T. No. 150 of 2012). From the F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner had some affair with the deceased girl and the dead body of the deceased was found and near the dead body of the deceased, the petitioner was also found lying, both of them having consumed poison. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Mantu Mahato is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs....
Bar Association, Jharkhand Hig Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(PIL)No.2347of2012 BarAssociation,JharkhandHighCourt,Ranchi .... .... .... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. .... .... ....Respondents CORAM :HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.SohailAnwar,Sr.Advocate FortheRespondents :A.A.G. Mr.S.Srivastava,Advocate th OrderNo.11 Dated,6 March,2013 The grievance the respondentuniversity is that sufficient fund is not being released by the State Government inspite of the assurance given. It is submitted that utilization certificate has also been given by the university with respect to alreadyallocatedfund. However, learned Additional Advocate GeneralsubmittedthatthematterwillbelookedintobytheState Government. Wemayobserveherethatconstructionshouldnotbe delayedbecauseofthepaucityoffundasalreadyundertakingis givenbytheStateGovernmentandotherwisealsoworkcannotbe stoppedatthisjunctureforthereasonofnonavailabilityoffund with.So,expeditiouslydecisionmaybetaken. Putupthiscaseon...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »