Jharkhand Court September 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.
Dr Ganga Ram Karowa Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1444 of 2013 Dr. Ganga Ram Karowa ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and another Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. Atanu Banerjee, J.K. Mishra, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----- 2 /17.09.2013 Let this matter be listed for admission along with Cr. M.P. No. 2430 of 2012 as well as Cr. M.P. No. 172 of 2013. Meanwhile counter affidavit be filed on behalf of the State. Until further order, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010 (G.R. No. 134 of 2010) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Brajesh/-...
Baliram Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1027 of 2013 Baliram Prasad Gupta ... ....Petitioner Vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr....Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Devesh Krishna For the State: Mrs. Lily Sahay , APP For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Prabir Chatterjee 5/17.09.2013: As prayed for, put up this case in the next week. In the meantime, interim order dated 18.04.2013 shall continue. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Jitendra Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1891 of 2013 Jitendra Sharma ...... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Saroj Sharma ... ... Opp. Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitabh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate ........ 06/17.09.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Jitendra Sharma is moved by Sri Nagmani Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Amitabh learned Additional PP for the State and Sri Rajiv Lochan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. Petitioner is ready to keep opposite party No.2 as his wife with all love and affection. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that she has no objection if petitioner give undertaking that he will not torture opposite party No.2 in future. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the pet...
Satyabhama Devi Vs. Bccl
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5451 o1. Satyabhama Devi 2. Binay Kumar Barnwal @ Binay Kumar .. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. M/s B.C.C.L. Dhanbad 2. Project Officer, Putki Balihar Colliery ... ... ... Respondents CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha For the Respondents : Mr. Ananda Sen 5/17.09.2013 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.08.2012 in Misc. Appeal No. 141 of 2012 passed by Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder he dismissed the appeal of petitioner which was filed against the order of Estate Officer, Putki, Balihar Area in Eviction Case No. 236 of 2011, whereby and whereunder he directed to evict petitioner from the land belonging to M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. From perusal of impugned order (Annexure-1), I find that petitioner has filed appeal before Principal District Judge after period of limitation. It further appears that petitioner has no...
ishwari Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6267 of 2013 Ishwari Paswan ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -------- 4/ 17.09.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 351, 352, 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act, in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 152 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1130 of 2008, S.T. No. 50 of 2013. The petitioner is not named in the FIR, though other persons are named. The case was instituted against 15 named accused persons and other unknown extremists. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the named accused persons, who had faced trial, have already been acquitted after trial....
Prabhu Nath Prasad and ors Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 385 of 2013 Prabhu Nath Prasad & Others Petitioners -V e r s u s- Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata & Others Respondents CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate. 04/17.09.2013 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the Estate Officer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, whereby and whereunder he directed petitioners to remove encroachment within 15 days, otherwise the same will be removed by the D.V.C. forcibly. From perusal of writ application, I find that petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the notice dated 11.01.2013, by which the petitioners have been directed to remove the encroachment is illegal. It appears that the said suit has been dismissed and against that an appeal filed bearing Title Appeal No. 24 of 2012. It then appears from para...
Mahabir Prasad Modi Vs. Chhotelal Modi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 263 of 2013 Mahabir Prasad Modi Petitioner -V e r s u s- Chhotelal Modi Respondent CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondent : 02/17.09.2013 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.07.2012 in Title Partition Suit No. 110 of 2004 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 4, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, he allowed the amendment application filed by plaintiff for amendment of the suit. It appears that the learned court below allowed the amendment taking into account that during the pendency of the suit defendant no. 7 died issueless. Thus, his share in the property will devolve in other parties. Accordingly, learned court below allowed plaintiff to amend the share of parties in the property mentioned in schedule of the plaint. Thus, I find no illegality in the aforesaid order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (P...
Mithlesh Singh Vs. Police
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1533 of 2013 Mithlesh Singh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma For the Respondents : J.C. to A.G. 02/17.09.2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 22.7.2010 contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad- Respondent No.4 whereby the Earned Leave of 140 days of the petitioner has been adjusted out of 238 days of his absence. According to the petitioner, he himself has preferred an appeal vide Annexure-8 to the writ application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Region, Bokaro against the said order, which has not yet been decided. In such circumstances, at this stage learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to pursue his appeal with a prayer that the Respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector Gen...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Another
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1485 of 2012 Rakesh Kumar ... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate ----- 16/17.09.2013. Pursuant to order dated 20.08.2013, the petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.2 are present in the Court. This application is directed against the order dated 31.05.2012 passed in C1- Case No.1081 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, provisional bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled, on the ground that the petitioner disobeyed the terms and conditions set forth in the order. When this application was preferred, the matter was referred before the Conciliator, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi whereby the parties have again arrived at to a certain terms and conditions, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:- 1. That the Petitioner-husband agre...
Binod Bihari Mahto Vs. Urban Development Department
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7241 of 2012 --- Binod Bihari Mahto --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & others --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State: JC to Sr. SC-1 For the DMC: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate --- 02/ 17.09.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner while working as Mazdoor under Notified Area Committee, Sindri which has since been integrated into Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, is said to have retired on 31st May 2002. According to him, his post retirement dues such as gratuity, leave encashment, balance provident fund amount, arrears of salary on account of 5th pay revision, interest on provident fund and other post retirement dues, have not been paid.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there were no d...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »