Jharkhand Court July 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.
Jai Pratap Singh ? Pappu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 2192 of 2011 and I.A. No. 1983 of 2013 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 693 of 2006 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 537 of 2006 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 409 of 2006 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 421 of 2006 Jai Pratap Singh @ Pappu ...... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal(DB) No.693/06] Baleshwar Singh ...... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal(DB) No.537/06] Sudarshan Singh ...... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal(DB) No.409/06] Dinanath Singh & ors. ...... Appellants [in Cr. Appeal(DB) No.421/06] Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent ( in all the Criminal Appeals) -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR -------- For the appellant: Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr.Advocate [in Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 693/06] For the State: A.P.P. -------- th Order No. 16: Dated 30 July, 2013 Per D.N.Patel, J.I.A.No. 2192 of 2011 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 693 of 2006:1. Learned counsel for the applicant, upon instruction from his client, submits that this interlocutory a...
Chintu Dubey Alias Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 5439 of 2013 ------- Chintu Dubey @ Ashish Kumar Dubey . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioner : : M/s. Amit Kr. Tiwari For the State : : Mr. A.P.P. ------- 2/ 30.07.2013. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 31 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 242 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 385, 386, 387/ 34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to demand of levy and it appears that the co-accused persons had gone to demand levy from the informant stating that they were demanding levy on behalf of this petitioner who was in jail custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the F.I.R. clearly shows that he was already in jail custody. I...
Tun Tun Kr Chauhan Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 3541 of 2009 Tun Tun Kumar Chauhan ..Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to A.S.G. ---- I.A. No. 5249/2013 12/30-07-2013 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground made out for fixing an early date of hearing of the writ petition in precedence over older cases and the cases of the same age. I.A. No. 5249/2013 is, accordingly, rejected. ( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J) Rakesh/...
Ghanshyam Prasad Verma Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 7152 of 2012 --- Ghanshyam Prasad Verma --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus Damodar Valley Corporation & others --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the DVC: Mr. Tapas Kabiraj, Advocate --- 02/ 30.07.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The simple grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that the electric supply tower installed by the respondent Corporation is passing through a fuel supply area of the petitioner situate at Plot Nos. 840, 841 and 838, Khata No. 31, Mouza Jhanjh in the district of Giridih having an area of 0.17 acres of land.3. According to the petitioner, he is an absolute owner of the said plot and is desirous to start a retail outlet dealership as Kisan Sewa Kendra in the name of Kushwaha Fuel Centre, for which he has made an application to the Indian Oil Corporation for appointment as a retailer. He has b...
Md Salim Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 713 of 2013 --- Md. Salim --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Srijit Choudhary, GA --- 05/ 30.07.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has straightaway approached this Court on issuance of notice to show-cause as to why warrant should not be issued against him by the Certificate Officer-cum-District Co-operative Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No.2) 3. It appears that such notice has been issued in execution of Certificate Case No. 242/2008-09 as the petitioner has not responded to the notice issued under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.4. Learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, on instruction, submits that the petitioner has not cooperated in the certificate proceedings and therefore, such other steps have been...
Dukhi Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 5453 of 2013 ------- Dukhi Mandal . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioner : : M/s. Kailash Prasad Deo For the State : : Mr. A.P.P. ------- 2/ 30.07.2013. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rail Jasidih P.S. Case No. 20 of 2012, corresponding to R.G.R. No. 54 of 2012, for the offence under Sections 328/ 414/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in committing theft in trains by intoxicating the passengers. The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, rather he has been named by the apprehended co-accused. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, Dukhi Mandal, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten T...
Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 1590 of 2013 with A.B.A. No. 2637 of 2013 Mahendra Prasad Singh.........Petitioner ( in ABA 1590/13) Hazi Tabarak Hussain @ Tabarak Hussain ......Petitioner ( in ABA 2637/13) Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........Opposite party ( in both cases) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioners: Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mohit Prakash ( in ABA 1590/13) Mr. C.S. Prasad, ( in ABA 2637/13) For the State: Mr. A.K. Pandey ,APP ( in both cases) For the Informant: Mr. Zafar Alam ( in both cases) 6/30.07.2013: It is alleged that petitioner Mahendra Prasad Singh sold 03 decimals of land to complainant through Sale Deed dated 16.08.2004. When the complainant applied for mutation before the Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh, her application for mutation has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is Gairmajarua Khas land and the land was not entered in the name of petitioner and/or his predecessors in Register-II...
Pito Baso Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S).No.42of2012 PitoBasoMahato. .Petitioner. Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. ....Respondents. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI ForthePetitioner : Dr.H.Waris,Advocate FortheState : J.C.toG.A. I.A.No.5096of2013:03. 30.07.2013: Inthisinterlocutoryapplication,thepetitionerhasprayed forstayoftheorderofrecoveryfromthepetitioner'ssalary. Ithasbeensubmittedthatbyorderdated14th June,2011 (Annexure3), the respondents have cancelled two promotion orders,wherebythepetitionerwasgivenjuniorselectiongrade and senior selection grade. The respondents have also taken decision to recover the difference of amount paid to the petitioner on account of upgradation of pay after the said promotions. It has been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the office order has been issued by the Executive Engineer, Kharkai Dam Division No.1, Musabani for recovery of theamountofRs.3,17,151/ininstallmentsfromhissalary.Learned counselforthepetitionersubmittedth...
Shanti Devi Vs. District Administration
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6750 of 2012 --- Shanti Devi --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State: JC to GP-VI --- 05/ 30.07.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The simple grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that a Bank Draft of Rs. 58,464/- which was submitted by the husband of the petitioner for lifting wheat and rice for public distribution shop in the year 2007-08 is not being returned to her in spite of the fact that the said material could not be lifted as her husband died on 17th February 2008.3. According to the petitioner, vide Annexure-2, the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda has advised the son of the present petitioner to approach the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Sahibganj for return of the aforesaid draft.4. Having heard counsel for the parties, this ...
Ravinder Kumar and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.1796 o1. Ravinder Kumar 2. Manoj Pangarkar @ Manoj P. Pangarkar...Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another . Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners : Mr.Shashi Kumar For the State :A.P.P 3.30.7.13. The defect pointed out by the office is hereby ignored. Issue notice 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 both under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed within a week. Let this matter be listed for admission on appearance of opposite party no.2. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in C-1 case no.503 of 2006, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur. ( R.R. Prasad, J.) ND/...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »