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.
Tezveer Deshwal Alias Tezveer Singh Deshwal Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 4147 of 2013 ------- Tezveer Deshwal @ Tezveer Singh Deshwal . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioner : : M/s. Md. Razaullah Ansari For the State : : Mr. A.P.P. ------- 5/ 29.07.2013. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No. 11 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 499 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 376, 372, 493, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the F.I.R. it appears that the victim was married to the co-accused against her wishes in the presence of her parents and other persons. Thereafter, she was taken to her in-law's house where she was subjected to rape by her husband and his brother and thereafter she again came back to her parent's house and she was again sent back alongwith her husband by the parents. While she w...
Guria Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.1939 o1. Guria Devi 2. Santosh Sah @ Santosh Kumar Shao............Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another...... Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K.Gupta 3/ 29.7.13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. This application is dismissed as withdrawn. (R.R. Prasad, J.) ND/...
Laloo Turi and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1720 o1. Laloo Turi 2. Hemanti Devi ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Anita Devi ...... Opp. Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay For the State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P. ........ 3/29.07.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Laloo Turi and Hemanti Devi is moved by Sri P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned Additional PP. for the State. From perusal of statement of complainant on S.A. I find that no specific overt act alleged against these petitioners. Considering the same, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 12th of August 2013 and in the event of their surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties o...
Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Uni Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Ltd and O
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 6021 of 2010 The Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, Ranchi ..Petitioner Versus M/s CCL & Ors. ..Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate ---- 07/29-7-2013 The members of the petitioner are aggrieved by the denial of their pay for overtime performance of duty. It has been submitted that earlier they had approached this Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 5493 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.11.2009 directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim and pass appropriate order. The respondent no. 3 has passed the order dated 8.10.2010 observing that the claim of the workmen does not tally with the actual overtime working. The general representation filed on behalf of the workmen was rejected on that ground. However, in the said order, liberty wa...
Mahavir Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.932of2013 MahavirMahto Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2.FulmatiDevi OppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.AwnishShankar,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 03/29.07.2013 PetitionerisaccusedinconnectionwithComplaintcaseNo.456of2011, pendingintheCourtoflearnedChiefJudicialMagistrate,Hazaribagh. The JudgeinCharge, Civil Court, Hazaribagh is directed to give explanationastowhytheservicereportinrespectofnoticeissuedtoO.P.No.2 hasnotyetbeencommunicatedtothisCourt.Theexplanationmustreachthis Courtby06.08.2013. Listthiscaseundertheheading'foradmission'on08.08.2013. Theinterimorderdated11.04.2013shallcontinuetillthenextlisting. (D.N.Upadhyay,J.) NKC...
Hari Charan Haiburu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 3473 of 2013 In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 356 of 2013 Hari Charan Haiburu 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. R.P. Gupta For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. ------ 05/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 1586 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 1586 days in preferring the appeal.3) Accordingly, I.A. No. 3473 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 5th August, 2013. (D. N. Patel,...
Chhotu Sao Alias Mahesh Kumar and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI I.A.No.2369of2013 with I.A.No.3601of2013 In Cr.Appeal(DB)No.205of2013 1.ChhotuSao@MaheshKumar 2.GaneshSao@GaneshKumar .......Appellants Versus TheStateofJharkhand .....Respondents. CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HONBLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR. FortheAppellants :Mr.R.S.Mazumdar,Sr.Advocate Mr.BrijBihariSinha,Advocate FortheState:Mr.RaviPrakash,A.P .P. 06/Dated:29 th July,2013 Oralorder: PerD.N.Patel,J.:1. CounselfortheappellantsisnotpressingInterlocutoryApplication No.2369of2013inthelightofanotherInterlocutoryApplicationfiledby theappellantsbeingI.A.No.3601of2013.2. Accordingly,I.A.No.2369of2013isdisposedofasnotpressed. I.A.No.3601of2013 1. Counselfortheappellantssubmittedthatappellantnos.1and2are claimingthattheywerejuvenileasthedateofbirthofappellantno.1is8 th July,1993anddateofbirthofappellantno.2is18 thApril,1988andthe dateofincidentis27thJune,2005.Thus,theageofappellantno.1ison thedateofincidentis11years05monthsand19dayswhereas,theageof appe...
Gangadhar Katiyar and anr Vs. Human Resource Development
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 3118 o1. Gangadhar Katiyar.2. Parmanand Singh ..Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others ..Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P. V ---- I.A. No. 4643/2013 05/29-7-2013 In this I.A., the petitioners have prayed for disposal of W.P.S. No.3118 of 2013 in terms of the order passed in WPS No. 2774 of 2004 ( Zahid Hussain and others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) It has been submitted that the case and the point involved in the instant case is exactly identical as in the case of Zahid Hussain & Ors (Supra) and is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the said case, upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 19981/2011. Learned J.C. to G.P. V , appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and admitted that this case is squarel...
Seva Lal Saw Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2172 of 2012 Seva Lal Saw . Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents Coram : The Honble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari For the Petitioner : Mr. B.K.Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to A.G. ----- 5/29.07.2013 In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue appointment letter. According to the petitioner, he had appeared in the written and physical tests for appointment of Constable for Dhanbad district pursuant to Advertisement no.1/10 and he was selected in the final select list prepared by the Appointment Committee. In the select list, his height has been shown as 160 Cms. The grievance of the petitioner is that while similarly situated persons have been appointed, the petitioner's appointment has been arbitrarily denied on the ground that the measurement of the height of the petitioner mentioned in the select list was not correct. The petitioner's height is less t...
Surendra Prasad Singh Alias Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.2125 of 2012 Surendra Prasad Singh @ Surendra Kumar.....Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand ............................. Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr.Arvind Kumar Choudhary For the State :2. 29.7.13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The order dated 26.6.2012 passed in Deoghar Town P.S case no.443 of 2010 under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner affirmed by the order dated 13.9.2012 passed by the revisional court is being sought to be quashed on the ground that there has been no materials showing commission of the offence of murder. The ground on which the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed cannot be said to be tenable so far it relates to quashing of the order taking cognizance and therefore, this application is disposed of giving liberty to the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »