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.
Vivekanand Choudhary Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 4396 of 2013 ------- Vivekanand Choudhary . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party With B.A No. 4064 of 2013 ------- Mahesh Rajak @ Mahesh Ram Rajak . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioners : : M/s. Pandey Neeraj Rai Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, For the State : : M/s. A.P.P. ------- 5/ 29.07.2013. Both these applications arise of the same case and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned counsels for the State. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 29 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 114 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 379, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner Vivekanand Choudhary is a Junior Engineer and it is alleged in the F.I.R. that one K. P. Singh who was the Executive Engi...
Manay Sundi Alias Langra Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 4322 of 2013 In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 451 of 2013 Manay Sundi @ Langra Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. CHANDRASHEKHAR ----- For the Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Modi For the Respondent: Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, A.P.P. ------ 02/Dated: July, 29, 2013 Per D.N. Patel, J1) This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 1763 days in preferring the instant appeal.2) Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the interlocutory application, there is reasonable reasons for condonation of delay of 1763 days in preferring the appeal.3) Accordingly, I.A. No. 4322 of 2013 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.4) Registry is directed to enlist the matter under the heading 'For Admission' on 12th August, 2013. (D. N. P...
Ms Global India Through Its Proprietor Mr Ajit Kumar Verma Vs. Collect ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C. No.3002 of 2013 M/s Global India .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Niyati Sah, R.K. Gupta & R.K.Singh For the Respondents : J.C. to A.A.G. & J.C. to A.S.G.I I.A. No. 3995 o04. 29.07.2013 By way of instant interlocutory application petitioner prays to incorporate certain prayer in the main writ application as during the pendency of the writ application, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has issued an order contained in memo No. 84 dated 27.4.2013 whereunder besides the petitioner's channel, 3 other channels have been held to be broadcasting signals illegally as they are not registered under Section 6(6) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 and are broadcasting through Multiple System Operators. The instant order is sought to be challenged by way of proposed amendment in the main writ application. Learned counsel fo...
The Commissioner of Central Ex Vs. M/S Steel Authority of India
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 & 31 of 2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs ...... Appellant Vs. M/s Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, ... ... ... ... ... Respondent ------ CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Roshan,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Order No. 17 ------ Dated 29th July, 2013 Following questions of law are involved in these appeals: (I) Whether the assessee who manufacture dutiable as well as exempted final products, avail MODVAT credit for both the products, they have to pay @ 8 % of the total price of exempted final products under rule 57CC(1) of the erstwhile CER, 44? (II) Whether a backward method of calculation can be accepted as the rules provide maintenance of separate inventory of receipt and use of inputs in respect of both exempted and dutiable goods from the very beginning stage? (III) Whether the CESTAT can remand the ...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.2070 o1. Rajesh Kumar 2. Govind Prasad Sao @ Govind Prasad 3. Rupa Devi....................................................Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another...... Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K.Chatterjee 5/ 29.7.13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to raise all the points which have been raised in this application at an appropriate stage. Reserving the aforesaid liberty, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. (R.R. Prasad, J.) ND/...
Khediya Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB)No. 493 of 2013 Khediya Devi ....... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent ............. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ....... For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Roy Advocate For the State : A.P.P ............ 02/Dated:29. h July, 2013 Per D.N. Patel. J.:1. This criminal appeal is Admitted.2. Records and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 42 of 2008 is called for from the Trial Court so as to reach to this Court on or before the next date of hearing for appreciating the argument for suspension of sentence.3. Registry of this Court is directed to get the paper books prepared with neatly typed copies of depositions of the witnesses and other documents as required under Rules 190 and 191 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001.4. The matter is adjourned to be listed on 26th August, 2013. (D.N. Patel, J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K./Satyarthi...
Sanjay Ravidas Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.2056of2013 SanjayRavidas Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2.SaritaDevi OppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mrs.JashodharaTripathy,Advocate FortheInformant :Mr.PankajKumar,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 04/29.07.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. It reveals that petitioner has been prosecuted for causing torture and treatingtheinformantwithcrueltyforwantofmoredowry. Itissubmittedthatthethematterhasbeensettledbetweenthespouses. Learnedcounselappearingfortheinformantsupportsthecontention. In the aforesaid circumstances, above named petitioner is directed to surrenderbeforetheCourtbelowwithinaperiodofthreeweeksfromtodayand onsuchsurrenderheisdirectedtobereleasedonbailonfurnishingbailbond ofRs.10,000/(RupeesTenThousand)withtwosuretiesofthelikeamounteach tothesatisfactionoftheCourtoflearnedChiefJudicialMagistrate,Hazaribagh inconnectionwithIchakP.S.CaseNo.149of2012correspondingtoG.R.Case No.3601 of 2012 su...
Ratan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Vigilance Bureau
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.Rev.No.202 of 2013 Ratan Kumar Singh...Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand through Vigilance. Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr.Bhanu Kumar For the Vigilance : Mr.Shailesh 13/ 29.7.13. This revision application is directed against the order dated 20.2.2013 passed in Vigilance P.S. case no.68 of 2010 (Special Case no.85 of 2010) whereby and whereunder prayer made by the petitioner for his discharge from the case was rejected. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P(PIL) No.1530 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department wherein it was found that in spite of Junior Engineers of Building Division being available, Assistant Teachers, who were having diploma/degree were deputed to supervise and to construct building of primary schools and other schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro district under the sponsored programme of the Governmen...
Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand and an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1593 o1. Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar 2. Srikant Swarnkar 3. Aruna Devi ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rounak Jaiswal ... ... Opp. Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar For the O.P. No.-2 : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha ........ 3/29.07.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar, Srikant Swarnkar and Aruna Devi is moved by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. From the allegations made in the complaint petition and statement of complainant on S.A. it appears that dispute between the parties is with respect to the landed property, which, in my opinion, can be resolved by filing a civil suit. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the co...
Narad Prasad Tiwari Vs. Comercial Taxes
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 3305 of 2013 Narad Prasad Tiwari ..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others ..Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to AAG ---- I.A. No. 4283/2013 03/29-7-2013 In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay his salary. It has been submitted that without any order of any such punishment, the petitioner's salary has been withheld from July, 2012. It has been stated that petitioner has been continuously working and he has not been put under suspension and no proceeding has been initiated till date but his salary has been stopped arbitrarily and illegally. Learned J.C. to AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that he has no instruction regarding withholding of salary. Though counter affidavit has been filed, there is no statement regarding initiation of any departmental proceeding...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »