Skip to content

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.

Aug 26 2013

Ramrai Ugar Sundi Alias Dambu Alias Rama Ugru Sundi Vs. State of Jhark ...

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.421of2013 RamraiUgarSundi@[email protected] Versus TheStateofJharkhand .....Respondents. CORAM: HONBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE HONBLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR. FortheAppellant :M/sRaviPrakash,KrishnaShankar,Advocates FortheState:Mr.S.S.Prasad,A.P.P. 05/Dated:26 th August,2013 Oralorder: PerD.N.Patel,J.:1. ThisappealhasbeenAdmittedvideorderdated29thJuly,2013and therecordandproceedingsofSessionsTrialNo.26of2005wascalled fromthetrialcourtsoastoappreciatetheargumentsforsuspensionof sentence.ThisCourthasreceivedtherecordandproceedingsofthetrial courtandwehaveperusedthesame.2. Havingheardcounselforboththesidesandlookingtotheevidences onrecord,thereisaprimafaciecaseinfavourofthisappellant.Itappears thatthecaseoftheprosecutionisbaseduponthecircumstantialevidence and the highest evidence against this appellantaccused is nearby dead bodyofthedeceased'HawaiChappal'wastherewhichwasfoundtobefit withtheaccused.Thisistheonlyevidence...


Aug 26 2013

Doman Pahariya Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2827 of 2013 Doman Pahariya ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha For the State : A. P.P. ----- 4/26.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 302/201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No.63 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.591 of 2010. (S.C. No.19 of 2011) The case relates to murder of the wife of the informant, who was also the daughter of this petitioner. The dead body of the deceased was recovered and the case was instituted against unknown. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has prayed for bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that there is statement of the eyewitness, who has stat...


Aug 26 2013

Saurya Construction Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Rajendra Prasad Singh ...

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2884 of 2013 Saurya Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi. ... Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....... Respondents. ------ CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioner : Mr. S.N. Prasad, Advocate For the State : J.C. to S.C.III ------ 3/26.08.2013: Learned J.C. to S.C.III prays for further two weeks' time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit. Prayer is allowed. Put up this case on 11th September, 2013. Till then, interim order dated 24.7.2013 shall continue. (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Shamim/...


Aug 26 2013

The State of Jharkhand Thr. Dc Vs. Sandeep Tiwari and ors

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI FirstAppealNo.17of2009 TheStateofJharkhand,through DeputyCommissioner,Palamau Appellant Versus SandeepTiwari&Others Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY FortheAppellants :Mr.ArvindKr.Mehta,J.C.toG.P .1 FortheRespondents :Mr.NagmaniTiwari,Advocate 09/26.08.2013 I.A.No.452of2009hasbeenfiledtocondonethedelayof559daysin preferringthisappealagainstthejudgmentandawarddated10.05.2007and 25.05.2007,passedinLandAcquisitionCaseNo.15of2003. It is submitted that in making correspondence to the Deputy CommissionerandotherofficialsoftheGovernmentofJharkhand,thedelay occurredinpreferringtheappeal.Finally,afterobtainingtheopinionoflearned AdvocateGeneralthisappealhasbeenpreferred.Underthecircumstances,the delaymaybecondonedandtheappealmaybefixedforadmission. Learnedcounselappearingfortherespondenthasopposedtheargument and submitted that such inordinate delay with such explanation cannot be condoned. IamnotsatisifedwiththegroundstakeninI.A.No.452of2009,and t...


Aug 26 2013

Krishna Murari and ors Vs. Science and Technology

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2934 of 2013 Krishna Murari & others .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha For the State : J.C. to G.A. For the Respondent No.5 : Mrs. Richa Sanchita 07/26.08.2013 By the last order the proposed amendments were allowed to be incorporated by filing an amended writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5, the Accountant General, who has also been impleaded as party by the last order dated 23.8.2013 seeks time to file their response to the writ petition in which the pay slip of the current salary of the petitioner is under challenge. In that view of the matter, let this case be adjourned for two weeks. In the meantime, petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the salary as fixed in the current pay scale. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty...


Aug 26 2013

Mahendra Ram Alias Mahendra Mochi Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3405 of 2013 Mahendra Ram @ Mahendra Mochi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha For the State : A. P.P. ----- 4/26.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Patan P.S. Case No.83 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1303 of 2011. The case relates to abduction for ransom of a school going boy and the case was instituted against unknown. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused and there is no other material against the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly, prayed for bail. Learned counsel for the State upon going through the case diary has s...


Aug 26 2013

Kishor Jojo Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-26-2013

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.391of2013 KishorJojo .......Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand .....Respondent CORAM: HONBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE HONBLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR. FortheAppellant :Mr.S.K.Deo,Advocate FortheState:Mr.H.K.Shikarwar,A.P.P. 04/Dated:26 th August,2013 Oralorder: PerD.N.Patel,J.:1. ThisappealhasbeenAdmittedvideorderdated29thJuly,2013and therecordandproceedingsofSessionsTrialNo.93of2006wascalled fromthetrialcourtsoastoappreciatetheargumentsforsuspensionof sentence.ThisCourthasreceivedtherecordandproceedingsofthetrial courtandwehaveperusedthesame.2. Havingheardcounselforboththesidesandlookingtotheevidences on record, it appears that there is a prima facie case in favour of this appellant.Asthecriminalappealispending,wearenotmuchanalyzing theevidencesonrecord,but,sufficeittosaythatlookingtothedepositions ofP.W.1,P.W.2,P.W.3andP.W.4,thereisaprimafaciecaseinfavourofthis appellant.Thereisnoeyewitnessoftheincidentnorthewitnessnamely, RathuNara...


Aug 23 2013

Sakhina Khatoon and anr Vs. New India Assurance Co Ltd

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-23-2013

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI M.A.No.231of2008 1.SakhinaKhatoon 2.GyasuddinAnsari Appellants Versus 1.TheNewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd. 2.RamKripalGupta 3.FaghuYadav Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY FortheAppellants :Mr.ArupKumarDey,Advocate FortheRespondents:Mr.AlokLal,Advocate 11/23.08.2013 ItappearsthatI.A.No.3291of2008hasbeenfiledtocondonethedelay of 43 days in filing this appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2008,passedbylearnedAddl.DistrictJudgecumMotorAccidentClaim Tribunal,BermoatTenughatinrespectofClaimCaseNo.09of2006. Appellantisdirectedtotakestepswithin10daysforserviceofnotice against R2 and R3 through registered cover with A.D. as well as through ordinaryprocess. (D.N.Upadhyay,J.) NKC...


Aug 23 2013

Jorong Jedan Sanga and anr Vs. Collectariate

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-23-2013

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(PIL)No.5218of2013 JorongJedanSanga&Anr. ... ... ... Petitioners Versus TheStateofJharkhandthroughthe DeputyCommissioner,Ranchi&Ors.... ... ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioners :Mr.SumeetGododia,Advocate Mr.A.K.Mahato,Advocate FortheState :Mr.JaiPrakash,A.A.G. 02/23.08.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdrawthiswritpetitioninordertopursuehisrepresentation filedbeforetheconcernedauthority. Prayerisallowed. Thiswritpetitionis,accordingly,dismissedaswithdrawn. (NarendraNathTiwari,J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Manish...


Aug 23 2013

Bali Ram Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors

Court: Jharkhand

Decided on: Aug-23-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2588 of 2012 Bali Ram Prasad .........Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Ananda Sen For the Respondents: Mr. J.C. to A.G. 5/23.08.2013: This application has been filed for quashing Annexure-10 whereby the agreement of the petitioner has been cancelled and Rs. 208633.00 have been forfeited from the earnest money. It is submitted by Sri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order has been passed without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. On the other hand, J.C. to A.G., submits that from Annexure-5 and 7 , it is clear that before cancelling the agreement, petitioner was given notice. Accordingly, he submits that ample opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case....


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial