Patna Court October 1993 Judgments
Bihar State R.T.C. Vs. Nita Ram Pal and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Nunumani Prasad Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the award of Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh dated 15.4.1989 in Misc. (Claim) Case No. 146 of 1980 whereby the Additional Claims Tribunal directed the Appellant-Bihar State Road Transport Corporation to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/- to the claimant-respondent with interest a 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 3.12.1979 at about 11.45 a.m. Sunny Rampal of Jhumri Telaiya, husband of the claimant-respondent, was going to Charhi in his Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. BHM-10 being driven by his driver Kameshwar Yadav. When the car reached near Padma Gate on Patna-Ranchi National Highway the bus of the appellant-Corporation bearing Registration No. BRV 6315 coming from opposite side being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against the car of the deceased which caused ext...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nita Rampal and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
N.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award of Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, dated 15.4.1989 in Misc. (Claim) Case No. 146 of 1980 whereby the Additional Claims Tibunal directed the appellant, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/- to the claimant-respondent with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 3.12.1979 at about 11.45 a.m. Sunny Rampal of Jhumri Telaiya, husband of the claimant-respondent, was going to Charhi in his Ambassador Car bearing registration No. BHM 10 being driven by his driver Kameshwar Yadav. When the car reached near Padma Gate on Patna-Ranchi National Highway the bus of the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. BRV 6315 coming from opposite side being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car of the deceased which caused ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Sumitra Devi and ors. Vs. Jahnvi Prasad Sah
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1974 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Patna in Title Appeal No. 132/30 of 1971/74, by which he has set aside the final decree dated 15-11-1971, passed by Subordinate Judge, Barh in Title Suit No. 100 of 1960 for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and has remanded the matter to the trial court for passing a fresh judgment and decree in accordance with law.2. The question which has been referred to the Division Bench for decision is as to whether in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts the valuation given in the plaint would govern the forum of appeal or the amount for which the final decree has been passed.3. The factual foundation essential for determination of the question referred to the Division Bench is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of partnership running in the name and style of J.P. Sahi and Co....
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Singh and anr. Vs. Chinta Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-11-1993
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjula Mishra and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Nunumani Prasad Singh, J.1. This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Section 100D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of Motor Vehicles Tribunal dated 15.4.1988 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- has been awarded to the claimant.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29.7.1983, Sivesh Mishra was going to Lohardaga on a scooter bearing registration No. BHV 4783 as a pillion rider and as soon as the scooter reached near Chiri Bridge truck bearing registration No. BHV 9222 coming from the opposite direction being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter causing severe injuries to Sivesh Mishra, the pillion rider of the scooter. Sivesh Mishra was removed to Lohardaga Hospital, then to Ranchi Medical College Hospital where he died in course of the treatment on 10.8.1983 leaving behind his widow arid a minor son. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of his death and he was a student of law ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Binod Kumar Roy and R.N. Prasad, JJ.1. In this writ application, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was an officiating Subordinate Judge posted as Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi and who was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order for treating the order contained in Memo No. 380 V-92/dated Patna the 29th March, 1983 of this Court (Respondent No.2) as contained in Annexure-l as non-est void, inoperative, arbitrary, un-constitutional and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to treat him to be promoted as an Additional District Judge and District Judge retrospectively in view Of the notification dated 25-2-1979 of the Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms of the Government of Bihar as contained in Annexure-2 and also to grant consequential benefits of promotion and othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›