Patna Court October 1996 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.
Mohan Lal Khemka Vs. Harihar Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 7th September, 1996 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Munger in Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 1996 whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 26th June 1996 passed by the Sub-Judge-II. Munger in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1993 who allowed the application filed by the opposite party under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The undisputed facts in brief are that the petitioner as plaintiff filed T.S. No. 35 of 1962 in the Court of 1st Sub-Ordinate Judge. Munger for declaration of his title in the suit property described in Schedules 1 and II of the plaint and also for realisation of arrears of rent and eviction of the O.P. No. 17, the father of O.P. No. 1. The suit was contested by the opposite party and was dismissed in terms of judgment dated 7th April, 1966. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred Tit...
Sheo Ratan Prasad Gupta Vs. Smt. Prema Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.93 passed by Sub-Judge, First Court, Dhanbad, in Title (Partition) suit no. 55 of 1990, accepting the compromise petition and passing decree in terms of the compromise itself.2. The above mentioned Partition suit was filed by the plaintiff- appellant for l/4th share in the movable and immovable properties contained in schedule A, B and C to the plaint and for carving out a separate Takhta in his favour and also for appointment of Receiver till the pendency of the suit besides other reliefs.3. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta, the father of the plaintiff was the Karta and the manager of Mitakshra Hindu undivided family and the said Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta being the Karta and manager of the joint family acquired various landed and house properties from the funds of the joint family in his own name and in the name of his wife, the defendant No. 1. The j...
Bihar State Co-operative Fruits and Vegetable Marketing Federation Ltd ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have questioned the validity of the order dated 28th June, 1996 passed by the Register, Co-operative Society, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the Bihar State Co-operative Fruits and Vegetable Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Federation') has been ordered to be liquidated with the consent and approval of the State Government in purported exercise of power under Section 42 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'said Act'). A copy of the said order issued vide Memo No. 5313 dated 28.6.1996 is filed and marked as Annexure-1 to this writ application.2. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 are the representatives of the Co-operative Society affiliated to the Federation and the petitioner Nos. 4 to 10 are the Members of the Board of Directors of the Federation elected in the Special General Meeting held on 31st December, 1995.3. The facts of the case are that...
Haroon Rashid and anr. Vs. Raqueeba Khatoon and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
N.N. Singh, J.1. By order dated 25.8.1995 passed in criminal revision No. 199 of 1994 (R), this matter was referred by the learned Single Judge to a larger Bench, on the ground that two Single Bench Judgments of this Court reported in 1987 PLJR 65-Md. Yunus v. Bibi Phenkani alias Tasrun Nisa and Anr. and Anr. reported in 1989 (2) BLJ 671-Md. Arif v. Bibi Jamila Khaton were of conflicting view regarding determination and interpretation of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and regarding period of maintenance to a divorced Muslim Women. As the same question was involved in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 1994 (R), by order dated 18.10.1995, another learned Single Judge ordered that it would be heard alongwith Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1994 (R).2. Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1994 (R) was filed against the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Sri U.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Clas...
Surjit Kaur and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. In this writ application the petitioners have impugned the order dated 29.6.1990 (Annexure-12) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur by reasons of which, in spite of his order dated 1.2.1992 quashed by this Court, he has refused to restore possession of the petitioners over three rooms of holding No., 33, road No. 3 of Manifit Basti, Telco, Town, Jamshedpur and have prayed for consequential relief by way of directing the respondents concerned to restore the possession of the said house to the petitioners.2. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, some facts are necessary to be discussed which, in short are as follows:One Sardar Jagdish Singh had filed Title Partition Suit No. 26/90 against Smt. Harbans Kaur and others in the Court of Subordinate Judge No. 1, Jamshedpur claiming, inter alia, for partition of the suit properties detailed in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint. It is to be noted that this J...
Smt. Tribeni Devi and ors. Vs. Chaturbhuj Khemka and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 9.5.1984 passed in Misc. Case No. 16 of the 1982 by Smt. Rajendra Kumari, the them Additional Sub-Judge at Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners-appellants under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has been dismissed.2. One Babulal Khemka filed Title Suit No. 18 of 1972 against the petitioners-appellants and the respondents-Opposite Parties No. 2 to 26 as defendants for specific performance of a contract dated 22.2.1959 for sale of the suit property stated in the schedule of the plaint entered into between the original /plaintiff Babulal Kemaka and late Bala Bux Poddar and late Hanuman Bux Poddar. The case of the appellants in the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. is that the petitioner No. 1(e) to 1(h) i.e. the appellant although were residing a their respective addresses after their marriage before 1956 but their addresses were...
Gauri Shankar Bhagat, J. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and the State.2. This case is another example of arbitrariness and highhandedness of the respondents authorities, who are the guardians of law and order in the district of Pakur, in dispossessing the petitioner from his possession without following the due process of law.3. The short fact of the case was that the petitioner was running a grocery shop in a tenanted premises in the town of Pakur under the tenancy of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 had filed a suit for eviction bearing Title Suit No. 11 of 1988. The said suit was dismissed on merit by the Subordinate Judge, Pakur, in terms of the judgment dated 16.7.1991 disbelieving the case of respondent No. 5, the land-lord, of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. A copy of the judgment is Annexure-11 to the writ application. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred Title Appeal No. 21 of 1991 before the Additional District Judge, Pakur, whi...
Lieutenant Colonel J.P.S. Suri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
1. The petitioner is a cashiered lieutenant colonel (Acting Colonel) from the army. The sentence of cashiering was given to the petitioner on 9.12.1995 by a General Court Martial in a proceeding in course of which all the charges levelled against him were found fully established. The sentence awarded by the Court was confirmed by the Army Commander, Southern Command on May 27, 1996 after dismissing the preconfirmation petitions dated 9.1.1996 and 23.2.1996 filed by the petitioner against his sentence.2. Although it was still open to the petitioner to make a petition against his sentence in terms of Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950, he chose to come to this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge the proceedings of the Court Martial and the sentence given to him. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the petitioner considered the filing of a petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, an exercise in...
Anil Kumar Tekriwal and anr. Vs. NavIn Chandra Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-02-1996
Dharmapal Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides.2. This revision-petition is directed against an order dated 28.7.1995 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, . Godda, in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1995, whereby the has negatived the prayer of the petitioners (Respondents in the appeal) to hold that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act').3. The order has been passed in the following back grounds: the petitioners instituted Title (Eviction) Suit No. 2 of 1990 praying for eviction of the opposite party (defendant in the suit), on the ground of personal necessity, from the suit, premises. During the course of the proceeding of the suit, a written statement had been filed by the Opposite Party on 15.5.1991 and thereafter issues were also framed and till that stage no petition seeking leave with affidavit as contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section...
Anwar Mian Alias Md. Anwar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
P.K. Sarkar, J.1. Heard Mr. Ramawtar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jawahar Pd. learned Additional. P.P. for the State. Mr. Sharma submits that from the allegation itself it appears that the sexual intercourse was done with consent with an assurance that the petitioner would marry the victim. In the impugned order, the Additional. Sessions Judge observed that this case comes under Section 415, IPC and is non-bailable. Learned Counsel submits that this is not correct because Section 415, IPC is the definition part and punishment is given in Section 417, IPC which shows that it is bailable. In the facts and circumstances, let the petitioner (Anwar Mian alias Md. Anwar) be enlarged on bail in Sadar (M) PS Case No. 270 of 1996 (GR No. 1405 of 1996) on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10, 000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »