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.
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 4000 of 2011 Court on its own motion ...... Petitioner Vrs. State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Mishra, Amicus Curiae For the Respondents: ...... Order No.17 Dated 26th July, 2013. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that to give effect to the direction contained in the order dated 1st July, 2013, sufficient time may be granted and, therefore, the matter may be adjourned for eight weeks so that appropriate action may be taken. It is further submitted that some of the Govt. Departments have already initiated the process in the light of the direction contained in the above said order. In view of the above, the matter is adjourned to be listed after eight weeks. (Prakash Tatia,C.J.) (Jaya Roy, J.) Sudhir...
Kamakhya Gour ? Ajay Gaur ? Kamakhya Gope ? Fadku Vs. State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(D.B.)No.778of2010 KamakhyaGour@AjayGaur@KamakhyaGope@FadkuGope .... .... ....Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... ....Respondent CORAM :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY FortheAppellant :Mr.B.M.Tripathy,Sr.Advocate FortheState :A.P.P. 16/26.07.2013 I.A.No.3564of2013 Thisinterlocutoryapplicationhasbeenfiledforgrantof bailtotheappellant. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press this interlocutoryapplication. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3564 of 2013 is rejected as not pressed. (NarendraNathTiwari,J.) (JayaRoy,J.) Anit/Satayendra...
Kamal Kumar Singh Alias Anant Chattarjee Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.2238of2013 KamalKumarSingh@AnantChatterjee .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM :HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.BinodKumarJha,Advocate FortheState :A.P.P. 07/26.06.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionerandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections467/468/471/419/420/34oftheIndianPenalCode. Counselforthepetitionerhassubmittedthataccordingto the F.I.R. allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken loan fromthebanksubmittingforgedL.I.C.Policies.Itisfurthersubmitted that he is not the same person who has taken loan and only on suspicion,hehasbeenimplicatedinthiscase. CounselfortheStatesubmittedthattheloantakenwereof Rs.3.15lakhsonthebasisoftheforgeddocumentswhichcauselossof publicmoney.Itisalsosubmittedthatthepetitionercouldnotproduce anydocumenttoprovethatheisnotthepersonwhohastakenthe loanasalleged. Consideringthefactsandci...
Gurudeo Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.1261 of 2011 Gurudeo Singh ......................... ..........Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand through C.B.I..........Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner:Mr.Anil Kumar For the C.B.I. : Mr.M.Khan 6/ 26.07.13. I.A.No.3970 of 2013 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this application has been filed wherein order taking cognizance has been challenged but during pendency, a petition filed for discharge before the court below was rejected and that order has been challenged by way of the aforesaid 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 application is hereby allowed. Let I.A form part of the main application. Cr.M.P. No.1261 of 2011 As prayed for on be...
Shiv Nath Prasad Gupta 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.2478 of 2012 Shiv Nath Prasad Gupta .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhayay, J.C. to A.A.G I.A. No. 5136 o08. 26.07.2013 By way of instant interlocutory application petitioner seeks an early hearing of the writ petition wherein the cancellation of License of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner is under challenge. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, let the case appear in the 1st week of September, 2013 under the heading for admission so that it can be considered and finally disposed of. I.A. No. 5136 of 2013 stands disposed of. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty...
M/S Tata Yodogawa Ltd Vs. State of Bihar and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI CWJC.No.852of2000(R) TataYodogawaLimited Petitioner Versus BiharStateElectricityBoard&others.... Respondents CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.N.K.Poddar,Sr.Adv FortheBoard :Mr.AnilKumarSinha,Sr.Adv. 18/26.7.2013 ThismatterhasbeenplacedtodaybytheRegistrywithanoffice note.ItappearsthatinviewoftheorderpassedbythisCourtdated24th April,2000,aBankGuaranteeNo.17/2000amountingtoRs.15lakhs wasdepositedbythepetitionerwiththeRegistrarGeneralofthisCourt videSerialNo.175dated11thMay,2000. Thiswritpetitionhasbeendisposedofbyadetailedjudgmenton 2nd May, 2013. However, in the judgment dated 2nd May, 2013, no specificorderinrelationtodischargeoftheaforesaidBankGuaranteewas passed,neitheritwasbroughttothenoticeoftheCourtbyeitherofthe parties.ThesealedenvelopofBankGuaranteethereforehasbeenopened today in the Court in presence of the parties. Perusal of the Bank Guaranteeenclosedwiththeletterdated11thMay,2000addressedtothe Registrar,PatnaHighCo...
Dr. Vinod Kumar Vs. Birsa Agriculture Universityanda
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI I.A.No.4747of2013 In C.M.P .No.26of2012 Dr.VinodKumar . Petitioner Versus BirsaAgricultureUniversitythroughitsViceChancellor,Kanke, Ranchi&another .... OppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner :Mr.SunilKumar,Advocate FortheOppositeParties :Mr.A.Allam,Sr.Advocate 05/Dated:26 th July,2013 1. Thisinterlocutoryapplicationhasbeenpreferredformodificationofthe order dated 21st June, 2013 passed by this Court because there is some typographicalerrorintheorderdated21stJune,2013.2. Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesides,itappearsthatinstead ofW.P.(S)No.6192of2005inparagraphnos.1,2and3,ithasbeentypedas W.P.(C)No.6192of2005.Thisisatypographicalerrorand,therefore,the orderdated21st June,2013inC.M.P.No.26of2012,whereverW.P.(C)No. 6192of2005ismentioned,itshallbenowreadasW.P.(S)No.6192of2005in first,secondandthirdparagraphoftheorderdated21stJune,2013.Thisorder willbetreatedaspartandparceloftheorderdated21stJune,2013.3. Accordingly,I.A.No.474...
indradeo Jha Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cont.Case(Civil)No.1068of2012 IndradeoJha Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&others .........OppositeParties. CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner:Mr.MahavirPd.Sinha,Advocate FortheRespondents:Mr.A.Allam,Sr.S.C.II 07/Dated:26 th July,2013 1. CounselfortheoppositepartyStatesubmittedthataLettersPatent AppealbeingL.P.A.No.376of2013hasbeenpreferredagainsttheorder, forthenoncomplianceofwhichthiscontemptpetitionispreferred,which isnowpendingandhence,themattermaybeadjourned.2. Inviewofthisfact,thematterisadjournedon30thAugust,2013. (D.N.Patel,J) VK/...
Flora Kerketta and Anothers Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cont.Case(Civil)No.1020of2012 FloraKerketta&Another Petitioners Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Another .........OppositeParties. CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner:Mr.ArunKumar,Advocate FortheRespondents:J.C.toSr.S.C.I 05/Dated:26 th July,2013 1. Thiscontemptpetitionhasbeenpreferredfornoncomplianceofthe order,passedbythisCourtdated24 th April,2009inW.P.(S)No.5136of 2007.2. Havingheardcounselforboththesides,itappearsthattheopposite parties have already passed a detailed speaking order and the legally payableamounthasalsobeenpaidlookingtotheannexuresatpage17, 18, 19 and 20 to the counter affidavit, filed by the opposite parties. Petitionerno.1hasbeenpaidanamountofRs.85,037/withadetailed calculationatpage17ofthecounteraffidavit.Thisamounthasbeenpaid byaccountpayeechequewithreceiptwhichisatpage18ofthecounter affidavit.Similarly,forpetitionerno.2,theamountfoundlegallypayableis Rs.37,716/anddetailedcalculationofthisamounthasalsobeengivenat pageno....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bimaldeep Mineral Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- T.A. No. 52 of 2006 ---- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna. Appellant. Versus Bimaldeep Mineral (P) Ltd., Ranchi .. Respondents. --- CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----- For the Appellant : M/s. Deepak Roshan. For the Respondents : ---- ----- Order No. 10 Dated :26. h July 2013 Defects are ignored. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that other Tax Appeals involving similar issue have been admitted i.e. Tax Appeal no.59/2006 and Tax Appeal no.60/2006. In view of the above, following questions of law are framed: A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT right in deleting the addition made under the head inflated purchase amounting to Rs.17,60,371/- and Rs.20,18,567/- made in respect of A.Y.1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively pursuant to the seized documents marked as BMPL-13? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the seized documents fou...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »