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.
Anita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C. No.1217 of 2012 Anita Devi .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others . .... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri For the Respondents : Mr. Nikesh Kr. Sinha & J.C. A.A.G I.A. No. 4668 o08. 26.07.2013 By way of instant interlocutory application petitioner seeks an early hearing of the case under the heading for admission. According to her the election certificateissued in her favour has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 22.2.2012 passed in Election Petition No. 35/2010-11 for the post of Mukhia , Barkagaon, West Hazaribag and direction was issued by the same order for issuance of certificate in favour of private respondent no.4. Private respondent has appeared on notice and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent no. 4 prays for sometime to respond to the main writ petition. Learned counsel for the State submitted that co...
Nimajan Khatoon and anr Vs. Gafoor Ansari and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 21 of 2011 Nimajan Khatoon & Anr. ... . .. Appellants Versus Gafoor Ansari & Ors. ...... Respondents --- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Appellants : Mr. Manoranjan Nath Sinha, D.K. Prasad, Adv. For the respondents : - -- 6/26.07.2013 I.A. No.494 of 2013 The present application is filed under Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of about 72 days in filing the first appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the application. For the reasons stated in the application and more particularly the reason stated in paragraph 5 of the application, sufficient cause has been made out which prevented the appellants to prefer appeal within stipulated time. Hence, delay in filing of appeal is ordered to be condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.494 of 2013 stands allowed. (P.P. Bhatt, J.) Saket/-...
State of Jharkhand and anr Vs. M/S Sharda Construction
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI ArbitrationAppealNo.3of2011 M/sShardaConstruction . Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhandthroughtheExecutiveEngineer, NationalHighwayDivision,Gumla .... Respondent With ArbitrationAppealNo.10of2010 TheStateofJharkhand&another . Appellants Versus M/sShardaConstruction .... Respondent With C.M.P.No.232of2013 TheStateofJharkhand&another . Petitioners Versus M/sShardaConstruction .... Respondent With I.A.No.3379of2013 CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL FortheShardaConstruction :Mr.RajKishorePrasad,Advocate FortheState :Mr.SaketUpadhyay,Advocate 06/Dated:26 th July,2013 I.A.No.3379of2013 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred for condonation of delayof335daysinfilingtherestorationapplication.2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasonsstatedinparagraphnos.4,5and6,therearereasonablereasonsfor condonationofdelayand,hence,thedelayis,hereby,condoned.3. Accordingly,I.A.No.3379of2013isallowedanddisposedof. C.M.P.No.232o...
M/S.Remy Enterprises Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI WP(C)No.259of2006 M/sRemyEnterprises ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhandandors. ... ... Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.xx FortheRespondents :J.C.toS.C.III&Mr.J.J.Sanga 926.7.2013 Nooneappearsonbehalfofthepetitioner.However,learned counselfortheStateandprivaterespondentarepresent. Itappearsthatonthelastoccasionalsonooneappearedon behalfofthepetitionerandthematterwasadjournedinordertogive onemoreopportunity. Sincetodayalsonooneappearedonbehalfofthepetitioner, thiswritpetitionisdismissedfornonprosecution. (ApareshKumarSingh,J.) Pandey...
PravIn Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.Rev. No.444 of 2013 Pravin Kumar ................................. Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand .....................Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the State : Mr.Shailesh 6/ 26.07.13. I.A.No.5162 of 2013 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance on the interlocutory application bearing no.5163 of 2013. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier this application had been filed for quashing of the order wherein prayer for discharge has been rejected but while the matter was pending before this Court, even the charges have been framed and therefore, that order by which charges have been framed has been challenged by way of interlocutory application and therefore, prayer made in the interlocutory application be allowed to be incorporated in the main application. The prayer made in the interlocutory ...
Dr.Ram Badan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.(S)No.2328of2006 (InthematterofanapplicationunderArticle226ofthe ConstitutionofIndia) Dr.RamBadanSinghMedicalOfficer Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2.TheMinistryofHealthandFamilyWelfare,Jharkhand 3.TheCivilSurgeoncum ChiefMedicalOfficer,Giridih ... Respondents ForthePetitioner :Mr.RajeshKumar,Advocate FortheRespondents :Mr.SaketUpadhyay,J.C.toA.A.G. Present HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ByCourt: The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the Civil Surgeon cumChief Medical Officer, Giridih whereby the petitioner was communicated that his services would be terminated w.e.f. 25.05.2006.2. Thebrieffactsofthecasearethat,thepetitionerwas appointedoncontractualbasisasAssistantMedicalOfficerfora periodoftwoyears.Anagreementwassignedon14thJune,2005 withthepetitionerwhereinitwasprovidedthatthesaidagreement would remain in force between the period 14.06.2005 to 13.06.2007. Itwasalsoprovidedinthesaidagreementthatthe appointmentw...
Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its Joint Director of Personnel and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C. No.5970 of 2012 Damodar Valley Corporation .... Petitioner Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Roy For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhyay I.A. No. 4977 o08. 26.07.2013 By way of instant interlocutory application petitioner seeks to implead the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (J.S.E.R.C.) as party respondent in the instant case where the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner relates to non payment of certain differential power supply bills raised by the respondent- J.S.E.B for the period May, 2010 to June, 2012 and onwards in terms of the rate determined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. For the reasons stated herein in above, it appears that J.S.E.R.C is proper party in the instant case as it otherwise also has statutory responsibility under Section 86(f) of the Electricity Act,...
indrajit Sinha ? Vicky and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(D.B.)No.295of2010 1.IndrajitSinha@Vicky 2.RajeshKashmi@RajeshReshmi .... .... ....Appellants Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... ....Respondent CORAM :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY FortheAppellants :Mr.AjayKumarSah,Advocate FortheState :A.P.P. 06/26.07.2013 I.A.No.141of2013 Inthisinterlocutoryapplication,appellantNo.1namely, Indrajit Sinha @ Vicky has prayed for his release on bail during pendencyoftheappeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant no.1submittedthatthoughtheappellant'ssameprayerwasearlier rejectedbythisCourt;hehasremainedincustodyformorethansix years;thereisnolikelihoodoftheappealbeingtakenupforhearing innearfuture,thustheappellantdeservestobereleasedonbail. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellantno.1andsubmittedthattheappellanthasbeenconvicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section394oftheIndianPenalCodeandthereissufficientev...
Rabindra Nath Dwivedi Vs. Information Commission
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C. No.3857 of 2013 Rabindra Nath Dwivedi .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others . .... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhyay 03/26.07.2013 Issue notice upon the respondent no. 3 under ordinary process on the present and correct address for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week, failing which, this application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No. 2717 of 2011. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty...
Paritosh Sarkar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.5681of2013 ParitoshSarkar Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.AnujKumar,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 02/26.07.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. Itrevealsfromthe fardbeyan thattheinformantwashavingloveaffair withthepetitionersincelastthreeyears.Hehadassuredthathewouldmarry heraftergettingemployment.Thereafterpetitionergotserviceinrailwayand calledtheinformantatTiruldihStationwherehewaspostedandthereafterhe tooktheinformanttohisrailwayquarterandcommittedrapeonherthough she was not agree for that. Thereafter petitioner refused to marry her and hencethiscase. It is submitted that the informant is already married with Nirmal Mazumdarandherrelationwithpetitionerwouldcomeunderthedefinitionof adultery. Besidestheabove,nowthepetitioneraswellastheinformanthave decidedtosolemnizedtheirmarriage. LearnedcounselappearingfortheStateopposedtheprayerforbail. Consideringalltheseaspects...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »