Patna Court May 1995 Judgments
Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: May-29-1995
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12th May, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 83 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant before the District Forum may be briefly noticed. The opposite partyLife Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, OY-H.S. Patna (hereinafter called LIC) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,60,000.00 under OY.H Scheme of the LIC to the complainant who is a policy holder of LIC for Rs. 1,86,000.00 and directed him to deposit Rs. 1150.00 and Rs. 50//- as processing fee. The loan was sanctioned by the opposite party-LIC on 28th September, 1990 after nearly five months after the date of the receipt of the application in their office though the loan has to be sanctioned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. The opposite party-LIC raised objec...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Akhtar, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-26-1995
Nagendra Rai, J.1. All these matters are connected matters and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission itself.2. In all the cases the petitioners have filed the application for the release of their vehicles, which have been admittedly seized either by the police officials or by the forest authorities in exercise of power under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Bihar Act 9/90) (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Amendment Act) for illegal transportation of Katha (Catechu) and Khair wood in contravention of provisions of the Indian Forest Act as well as for quashing the confiscation proceeding pending before the authorised officer under the Act.3. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 567/94, the petitioner states that the owners of the vehicle bearing No. W.B.I. 6184 are Tabrej Ahmed and Mustaffa Hussain and in terms of agreement dated 3.1.1994 the owners have given him the vehicle on hire on ...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Hotel Rajhans and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-25-1995
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1994 (decree signed on 17. 6.1994) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge III, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 79/82, by reason of which the court below has decreed the suit against the appellant.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of default of monthly rent from January, 1980 up to the date of filing of the suit including the electric charges. The plaintiffs also claimed arrears of rent for the aforesaid period @ Rs. 3263/- per month and also electric charges as per meter reading, which have been detailed in Schedule B of the plaint According to the plaintiffs, cause of action for filing the suit arose from April, 1981. Other reliefs were also claimed by the plaintiffs.3. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that in or about April, 1974, being approached b...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Sah @ Churabhu Sah Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-25-1995
N.K. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri A. Amanullah, counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State.2. The petitioner claims to be a petty businessman and he is in custody in Kochas P.S. Case No. 93 of 1994 under Section 22, 27 and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 CNDPS Act for short) The prosecution case in short is that the informant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, received confidential information at 8.15 a.m. on 19-12-1995 that a person was selling herion in front of the shop of one Dubey With a view to verify the truth of the information received, the informant, after making the Station Diary Entry, left for the P.O. along with an Assistant Sub-Inspector and some armed constables. The petitioner was arrested on the spot and he correctly disclosed his identity. Oh search in presence of two witnesses, 20 Purias each containing herion as also a cash of Rs. 125 were recovered from his pocket. A seizure list was prepared which was signed by the witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Braj Kishore Singh and Company Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-25-1995
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is the award of a contract for annual repair of roads in National High Way Division, Gopalganj. The said tender was invited on the basis of an advertisement issued in a newspaper dated 16th July, 1993 and the date was extended to 15th September, 1993 and on that date the final bid took place. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted its tenders only for Group No. I and in time and deposited the requisite amount of earnest money. Even though in this writ petition this Court is concerned with the award of tender only in respect of Group No. I, the facts relating to award of tender in other groups have also trickled in through the creeks and crevices, as it were, of the materials disclosed in the course of hearing. 3. The gravamen of the charge made inthe writ petition is this that in respect of grant of tender for all the four groups one particular tenderer, namely, M/s. North Bihar Constructio...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Bind Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-23-1995
N.K. Sinha, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside his conviction under Section376 I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had found the appellant guilty of having raped Parni Kumari on 26th January, 1991 in village Baijnath within Ramgarh police station of Rohtas district, and for which he was convicted and sentenced;2. Nithohar Bind (PW 7) the father of Parni Kumari aged 7 years lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. 3) that his daughter had been to case herself on 26.1.1991 at about 6 p.m. to the north of the village. She had gone alone. About an hour later she returned home weeping. On enquiry she told her father that the appellant gave her a 'Chawanni' and thereafter took her to his house near the pond. She further added that inside the house he made her lie on the ground and after removing her Pant raped her. Thereafter after making her wear her pant he asked her not to divulge this to any one. The informant fou...
Tag this Judgment!Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-22-1995
R.N. Sahay, J. 1. The controvesy in this case is whether the activities carried on by the Institution of which the petitioner is the Director can be brought within the mischief of Bihar State Engineering, Pharmacy and Commercial Education (Regulation and Control) Act, 1983 (in short 'the Act') as has been done by the respondent, the Secretary, Science and Technology Bihar by issuing the order as contained in Annexure-13 dated 16-8-1994. Annexure-13 is a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi requesting him to take immediate action in the matter of the Bihar Institution of Mining and Mines Surveying Ranchi on the ground the said Institute having not obtained recognition from A.I.T.C.E., New Delhi and the State Government thereby contravened All India Technical Education Act, 1987 and Bihar Act, 1983. The Dy. Commissioner was conveyed the decision of the State Government to lock the Institute and instituted F.I.R. against the founder and Principal of the Institute. A copy o...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Govind Mistry Vs. Mahabeer Prasad Tiberewal and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-1995
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad for the appellant and Mr. Eqbal for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice.2. With the consent of the parties, this miscellaneous appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself on a very simple point.3. It appears that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition being compensation Case Nos. 32 of 1989 and 28 of 1989 before the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga, on 2.3.1989. Admittedly, the accident took place on 6.4.1987. There was some delay in filing of the said claim case and, as such, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied the memo of claim petition. By order dated 22.6.1989 the learned court below, after hearing the Counsel of the appellant and condoning the delay, admitted the case. Notices were issued to the opposite parties.4. When the case was being heard by the court below, the insurance company raised a point that the said claim case was barred b...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayan Deo Vs. Rama Nand Bhagwan and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-1995
Narayan Roy, J.1. The question to be decided in this civil revision application is as to whether a suit filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) is barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) even if the Award made under the Act has not been made rule of the Court but the same was registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.2. It appears that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1. In the suit, the petitioner appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the suit as the same was barred under Section 32 of the Act. The application aforementioned, however, was heard as a preliminary issue and the learned Court below after hearing the parties rejected the same holding that Section 32 of the Act is not a specific bar in the present suit, which has been brought under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Sinha and anr. Vs. Indrajeet Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-18-1995
Narayan Roy, J.1. This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 20.4.1993, passed by the learned Munsif, in exercise of its power under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It appears that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 18(2) of the Act was heard on merit by the learned Munsif and he rejected the same holding that the petitioners have not proved the notice served upon them by Opp. Party under Section 18(1) of the Act.2. The short facts giving rise to this civil revision application are as under.The suit premises in question was let out to the Opp. Party on the basis of fixed term tenancy created w.e.f. 7.1.1988, for a term of five years ending on 6.1.1993. The agreement of fixed term tenancy has been filed in this application and has been marked as Annexure-2 to the same. In the agreement, there is no clause for renewal of the lease. However, since the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »