Jharkhand Court August 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.
Sukhlal and Sukhlal Jee Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(PIL)No.2590of2012 Sukhlal@SukhlalJee ... ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. ... ... Respondents CORAM :HONEBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioner :Mr.ShabhakarMishra,Advocate FortheState :Mr.IndrajitSinha,Advocate th 12/Dated:26 August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the tender issuedbytheMunicipalCorporationofDhanbadvideAdvertisement No.1057 dated 14th March, 2012 for collecting fees for vehicle parking.2. Havingheardthecounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe averments made in this Public Interest Litigation and the affidavit filedbytherespondents,itappearsthatthiswritpetitionhasbeen preferredchallengingthetenderissuedbytheMunicipalCorporation ofDhanbadvideAdvertisementNo.1057dated14thMarch,2012.The saidtenderwasissuedforoneyear.Thus,theperiodofoneyearhas already been over. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerisunabletoestablishthatt...
Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs. Sudha Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI I.A.No.174of2013 with I.A.No.6249of2013 in C.M.P .No.641of2012 KamleshKumarSingh ... ... Petitioner Versus SudhaDevi&Anr. ... ... Respondents CORAM :HONEBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioner :M/s.RajivNandanPd.,RajeshKumar,Adv. FortheRespondentNo.1:Mr.S.L.Agarwal,Advocate th 05/Dated:26 August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.I.A.No.174of2013 1. Thisapplicationhasbeenpreferredforcondonationofdelayof 48daysinpreferringthisC.M.P.2. Havingheardthecounselforboththesidesandalsolookingto thereasonsstatedintheI.A.,speciallyinparanos.4&5,thereare reasonablereasonsforcondonationofdelayinpreferringthisC.M.P.3. We,therefore,condonethedelayinpreferringthisC.M.P.4. I.A.No.174of2013isallowedanddisposedofaccordingly. C.M.P.No.641of2012 5. ThepresentpetitionhasbeenpreferredforrestorationofF.A. No. 884 of 2006, which was dismissed for want of deposition of Rs.20,000/. The order was dismissed for default on 23rd August, 2012.Previously,t...
Kauleshwar Mahto and ors Vs. the Chairman Cum Managing Director C C L ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI C.M.P.No.217of2013 KauleshwarMahto&ors ... Petitioners Versus TheChairmancumM.D.CCLandors. ... ... Opp.Parties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.N.Jha FortheOpp.Parties :Mr.AnandaSen 526.8.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. This petition is for restoration of writ petition being WP(S) No.4425of2012,whichwasdismissedfordefaulton10.10.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the petitioners came to know that the writ petition was dismissed on account of nonappearing of the previous counsel, they filed the instantpetitionforrestorationoftheaforesaidwritpetition. Counselfortheoppositepartiesispresent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfiedwiththegroundsmadeintheinstantpetition,thisCMPis allowedandWP(S)No.4425of2012isrestoredtoitsoriginalfile. (ApareshKumarSingh,J.) Pandey...
Bhuneshwar Oraon and ors. Vs. Randsi Oraon and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 121 of 2004 Narayan Oraon & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Randsi Oraon & Ors. .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate ----- I.A. Nos. 3614/2008, 1859/2011 and 1861/2011 12/26.08.2013 The heirs and legal representatives of appellant no. 4-Rama Oraon have prayed for their substitution in place of the said appellant after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement. It has been stated that appellant no. 4 died on 10.07.2008 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives, as described in para 4 of the application. The applicants are rural tribals and they are not acquainted with the legal provision. They could not know that the step for substitution after the death of appellant no. 4 was required to be taken within 90 days. Subsequently when they came to the office of their counsel, they were advised to file petition fo...
Butan Manjhi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2710 of 2013 Butan Manjhi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Manjula Upadhyay For the State : A. P.P. ----- 6/26.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 395 and 397, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.43 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.403 of 2012. The case relates to dacoity and from the FIR, it is apparent that the petitioner was apprehended soon after dacoity at the spot itself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner Butan Manjhi on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands dismissed. (H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar...
Bala Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.949of2012 BalaDevi .......Appellant Versus 1.StateofJharkhand 2.AnantMahto .....Respondents. CORAM: HONBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE HONBLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR. FortheAppellant :Mr.N.K.Jaiswal,Advocate FortheState:A.P .P. 06/Dated:26 th August,2013 Oralorder: PerD.N.Patel,J.:1. Issue fresh notice upon respondent no. 2 to be served through Sonahatu(Rahe)PoliceStation,DistrictRanchi.Theheadofthesaidpolice stationwillservenoticetorespondentno.2andreturnthepaperstothis Court.2. Noticeismadereturnableon16thSeptember,2013. (D.N.Patel,A.C.J) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) VK/...
Sushil Kumar Singh Vs. C R P F
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5107 of 2013 Sushil Kumar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Krishna & Mr. Amit Sinha For the Respondents : Md. Mokhtar Khan, A.S.G.I. 03/26.08.2013 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer dated 23.7.2013 whereby he has been transferred to the 226 B.N. Jalandhar issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General (Administration) office of Director General, Central Zone, Kolkata from the present place of posting as Sub Inspector, C.R.P.F. in Group Centre, Jharkhand, Ranchi. According to the petitioner for raising 226 BN Jalandhar nomination were asked from different group centres including the Jharkhand centre of such personnel who were having the longest stay in the respective centres. The petitioner's name was recommended by the Inspector General, Group Centre,...
Chipu Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI I.A.No.6228of2013 In Cr.(Jail)Appeal(DB)No.1129of2012 ChipuMurmu Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand Respondent CORAM: HON'BLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellant : Ms.RashmiKumar,AmicusCuriae FortheState : Mr.PankajKumar,A.P.P. 06/Dated:26 th August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.:1. Thisinterlocutoryapplicationhasbeenpreferredformodificationofthe order passed by this Court dated 27th February, 2013. This appellant was enlargedonbailbysuspendingthesentenceuponexecutionofbailbondof Rs.10,000/withtwosuretiesofthelikeamounteachtothesatisfactionofthe trial court. A letter has been written by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka that the present appellant has no means to give bail bond of Rs.10,000/withtwosuretiesofthelikeamount.Bothsonsofthisappellant haveexpired.Exceptminorgrandson,thereisnorelativeand,therefore,heis unabletogivebailbondandsureties,asdirectedbythisCourtand,therefore, despitetheorderwaspassedinFebruary20...
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt.Rajmuni Devi and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Misc.AppealNo.10of2010 TheNationalInsuranceCompanyLtd.,Ranchi Appellant Versus Smt.RajmuniDevi&Others Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY FortheAppellant :Mr.G.C.Jha,Advocate FortheRespondents:Mr.AmarKr.Gupta& Mr.AnilKumarGanjhu,Advocates I.A.No.243of2010 09/26.08.2013 I.A.No.243of2010hasbeenfiledtocondonethedelayinpresentingthe appealagainstthejudgmentandawarddated20.08.2009,passedinM.A.C.T. CaseNo.02/2004. Itissubmittedthattheappellantistheinsurancecompanyandthedelay occurredinseeking informationandmakingcorrespondencewiththe higher officialsandthecounselconcerned. On being satisfied with the ground taken, the delay of 53 days in presentingtheappealiscondoned. I.A.No.243of2010standsallowed. Misc.AppealNo.10of2010 Thereisnoneedtosendnoticetotherespondentswhohavealready appeared. Appellantisdirectedtotakestepswithinoneweekforserviceofnotice against R5 through registered cover with A.D. as well as through ordinary process. Listthiscaseundert...
Ram Babu Prasad Vs. Health
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6443 of 2012 Ram Babu Prasad .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad For the Respondents : J.C. to A.A.G. 03/26.08.2013 According to the petitioner he has retired from service on 31.10.2012 during the pendency of the writ application but no post retirement dues have been paid. Petitioner has approached this Court against the order of cancellation of his promotion vide Annexure-11 dated 3.10.2011. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to move appropriate application for his admitted grievances relating to the post retirement dues. Accordingly, petitioner is allowed liberty to do so. In this case the grievances of the petitioner relating to cancellation of his promotion is being contested by the respondents through an affidavit filed on their behalf, which needs some hea...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »