Patna Court August 1993 Judgments

Ram Krishna Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

1. In this application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing of a notification dated 7-5-1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the declaration dated 4-5-1987 issued under Section 6 thereof as also the award dated 28-9-1987 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Begusarai and further for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to withdraw from the acquisition of the land of the petitioner and further commanding the respondents not to interfere with the physical possession of the petitioner. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioners were originally the owners of lands in question. By notification dated 7-5-1985 issued under Section 4(1) of the said Act the lands of the petitioners appertaining to Khata Nos. 455, 391 and 625, Khasra Nos. 467, 468 and 617 covering an area of 5.68 acres were sought to be acquired for the rehabilitation of Gang...

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

B.K. Roy and R.N. Prasad, JJ.1. The petitioner through this writ application filed on 20-10-1992, prays to command the respondents, particularly respondent No. 8, the Sub-divisional Officer, Flood Protection Sub-division, Bihta at Maner, district Patna to immediately vacate his lands measuring 2.82 acres of plot Nos. 156. 263 and 264 appertaining to khata no. 184 in Village Bihta in the district of Patna.2. From the bulky records of this writ application it transpires that during emergency the land aforementioned as occupied by the Advance Planning and Investigation Division for the temporary use of Sone Embankment Division which was sought to be acquired temporarily under Section 35 of the Land Aqcuisition Act, which is clear from a letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna bearing No. 802 dated 26-8-76 (as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit), that the acquisition proceedings, however, could not be initiated ; that annual rent of the land wa...

The Principal, St. Robert’s High School Vs. Sone Valley Portland ...

Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna

B.N. Sinha, President: 1. The complainant has filed this case for refund of Rs. 40,462.44 of which the complainant had paid to the opposite parties for supply of cement to the complainant and has claimed 18% interest per annum. 2. The case of the complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant got a permit dated 18.5.85 issued by the Government of Bihar for the supply of 60 M.T. of cement with the Sone Valley Portland Cement Company Private Limited (the opposite Party No. 1 to 4) through O.P. No. 5 and a sum of Rs. 63,282/- was paid towards the same by the complainant, vide order of registration- cum-receipt dated 3.6.85 as modified by order dated 3.8.85. The delivery was to be taken by the complainant at the factory according to the schedule given below : Two trucks on 17.6.85 Two trucks on 19.6.85 and One truck on 22.6.85 The complainant sent two trucks as per schedule on 17.6.85 but no cement was supplied to him and the complainant was informed that the date of dispatch of cemen...

Sub-divisional Officer, Telephone Vs. Manoj Kumar Hasaria

Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna

B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 4.3.92 passed by the District Forum, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 10 of 1991. The appellant before this Commission was opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The detail facts of the case are not required for the disposal of this appeal. It will suffice to mention that the complainant filed a case before the District Forum alleging that the telephone bills in question sent to him by the Opp. Party in respect of his telephone No. 2201 are inflated and excessive. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version stating inter alia that the complainant has got his own meter which is sealed and kept. under lock, that the bills in question sent to the complainant had been sent in accordance with the meter readings and that as the bills were not paid his telephone connection was disconnected. It has been further averred by the opposite party that ther...

Shri Ram Tiwary and anr. Vs. Bholi Devi and anr.

Court: Patna

1. The present revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the order dated 17-12-1992 passed by 1st Subordinate Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No, 170 of 1991 staying the suit till the disposal of First Appeal No. 211 of 1981 pending before this Court.2. The foundational facts essential for disposal of the present revision application are as follows:The plaintiffs-petitioners filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that they have absolute right, title and interest over the properties described in schedule III of the plaint for recovery of possession regarding land described in schedule I, for confirmation of possession over the land described in schedule II of the plaint and alternatively for recovery of possession if they are found dispossessed from schedule II land during the pendency of the suit and for injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction over the land described in schedule II of the plaint.3. The plaintiffs'c...

Chaitu Sahni and Rama Sahni Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Reported in: 1994(42)BLJR293

1. The petitioners have moved this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 23-12-1992 passed by the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur by reason of which the Court has recalled the order dated 18-12-1992 passed under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). By reason of said order dated 18-12-1992, the petitioners were released on bail on the ground that the charge-sheet in the case was not filed within prescribed statutory time.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the State have agreed that this case may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself had as such extensive hearing was given to the parties.3. The question is to be decided in this case as to whether once the order of bail granted to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 167(2)(a) of the Code, the same could be recalled after filing of the charge-sheet and before the petitioner could furnish surety for their release.4. The facts of the case, which are...

Governing Body, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College of Pharmacy and anr. Vs ...

Court: Patna

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The Governing Body of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College of Pharmacy, Anishabad, Patna (in short, hereinafter referred to as 'the institution') has preferred to file this writ application primarily seeking two reliefs. These are for a mandamus (i) to hold Diploma in Pharmacy examination for the session 1989-91 to 1991-93 and (ii) to provide hospital training to the students of the institution for completing their practical training in Diploma in Pharmacy (Part-Il-B).2. In this case it is an admitted position that the petitioner is an approved institution for conducting the course in question and the respondent-Controller of Examination is the declared examining authority. These facts are clearly apparent from the notification published in the Gazette of India dated the 5th September, 1992. Two facts having material bearing on the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are also apparent from the notification published in the said Gazette, which reads as under :Resolution No....

Bibi Asiran Vs. Mobarak Ansari

Court: Patna

Dharmpal Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against a part of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.1991 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Case No. 4(M) of 1979, whereby the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has made a declaration that the applicant is entitled to realise arrears of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from 23.6.1983 to 23.7.1988 and thereafter she will get the amount of Rs. 4,250/- which is said to have been deposited on account of Mehar and the amount of maintenance during Iddat period before the Anjuman.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition may briefly be stated. The applicant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') claiming maintenance and the application had been allowed on 23.6.1983 and the opposite party (the husband) was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 150/-per month to the applicant. A rev...

industrial Fuel Company Private Ltd. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation ...

Court: Patna

S.B. Sinha, J.1. In this application, petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent-Corporation to forbear from giving effect to or acting in pursuance of the letter dated 11-6-1993 issued by Respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-22 to the writ application and other incidental reliefs.2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.3. The Respondent-Corporation invited tender for sale of 20, 000 Metric Tonne of Slack coal on or about 30-12-1992 which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application and pursuant thereto the petitioner along with others submitted tenders, In the said tender the respondents asked for an offer of price for selling Slack coal left over after meeting the requirement of coal (ID' Grade non-coking long flame). In the said tender it was further mentioned that stales tax and other levies, excise duty etc, shall be payable extra as applicable on the date of delivery.4. According to the petitioner by reason of a ...

Bibi Anwarunisa Vs. Daulat Rai and Mahesh Rai

Court: Patna

S.B. Singh, J.1. This first appeal is directed against an order dated 5th July, 1975 passed by Shri Satya Narain Prasad Seth, Sub-Judge Giridih in Title Suit No. 9 of 1974 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the suit for a decree for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff-appellant.2. The plaintiff executed five sale deeds in favour of the defendants in respect of the lands described in Schedule A/1 to A/5 of the plaint each for a consideration of Rs. 2,000. Another sale-deed was executed in respect of Schedule A/6 of the plaint on 25-3-1969 in favour of the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 1,000.3. The first five deeds of sale were registered on 25-3-1969. On the respective date of the execution of the registered deeds of sale, agreements had been entered into to the effect that the defendants should reconvey the suit lands to the plaintiff if the amount of consideration is returned to the defendants in the month of Magh in any year from 25-3-1969 to 24-3-1974....