Patna Court February 1996 Judgments
State of Bihar Vs. Joy Sumit Nandi
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party by this Court on 28.9.1995 vide Cr. Misc. No. 4367 of 1995(R) in connection with Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 174 of 1995 dated 31.5.1995 (G.R. No. 837 of 1995) registered against the opposite party under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party filed Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 231 of 1995 before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh which was dismissed on merit on 17.6.1995. Thereafter on 8.9.1995 the opposite party filed Cr. Misc. No. 3675 of 1995 (R) in this Court for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.9.1995 on the plea that there was no apprehension for being arrested. The opposite party on 27.9.1995 on the plea that there was no apprehension for being arrested. The opposite party on 27.9.1995 filed second application for anticipatory bail in this Court, being Cr. Misc. No. 4367 of 1995 (R). AlongWith the said application a pho...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh and ors. and Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
S.K. Homochaudhuri, J.1. In these two petitions, similar facts and identical law points are involved and the petitions are disposed of on merit at the stage of admission by this common order.2. In both petitions, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Collector for redressal of their grievances against the orders passed in the proceedings under the Act. The application filed under Section 45B of the Act by the petitioners in C.W.J.C No. 11286 of 1995 has been registered as Misc. Ceiling Case No. 287 of 1992. The Collector, by the impugned order dated 1.11.1995, dropped the proceeding of the said case holding that of the power of the Collector having been deleted by Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, which came into effect with effect from 8.9.1995, the Collector ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing orders dated 12.1.1996, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh, contained in annexures 4, 5 and 6, whereby purporting to act under Section 7A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be refereed to as 'the Act') bank accounts of the petitioner-company in three banks viz. United Commercial Bank, Ranchi, State Bank of India, Ranchi and Bank of India, Ranchi have been attached for payment of the amount of surcharge under Section 3A of the Act. Further prayer has been made for a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay amount of surcharge under Section 3A of the Act.2. Short facts are that petitioner No. 1is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in the district of Hazaribagh and petitioner No. 2 is its Deputy Manger (Accounts). The petitioner-company is manufacturer of alloys, tool and special steel and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kusumlal Mallah Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Chaudhary S.N. Mishra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. With consent of the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 2.9.94 passed by respondent No. 2 the Sub divisional Officer, Forbesganj, whereby the concerned respondents have been directed to make entry into the-relevant. register, a copy of which has been made Annexure-3 to this writ application. It is stated that the land in question pertaining to Khata No. 786, plot No. 3783 having an area of 0.78 decimals and plot No. 3791 measuring an area of 1 acre were recorded in the name of the petitioner in Sikmi Khata No. 284 in the revisional survey Khatiyan, as per amended provisions of Section 48-D of the Bihar Tendency Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner, filed an application before respondent No. 3, the Circle Officer, Bhargama Anchal, District Araria, for...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ram Narayan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner have approached this Court impugning the order of the Government of Bihar, Science and Technology Department dated 7.12.1994, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the petition. By the impugned order, the Government have cancelled the final seniority list dated 175.1993 of the Professors of three Government Engineering Colleges, namely, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur (in short 'M.I.T., Muzaffarpur'), Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri (in short 'B.I.T., Sindri') and Bhagalpur Engineering College. Bhagalpur (in short 'B.E.C., Bhagalpur'), and published a provisional seniority list, including the names of the time-bound promotes to the post of Professor in the three Colleges. The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of respondent No. 6, I.D.P. Singh, to the post of Director, B.I.T., Sindri on the ground that respondent No. 6 does not possess the ...
Tag this Judgment!Priyavarte Mehta Vs. Amrendu Banerjee
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The defendant ineviction suit has filed the present revision application against the order dated 9-4-1985 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, in Title Suit No. 46 of 1985, directing him to deposit the arrears of rent prior to theinstitution of the suit from February, 1980 to January, 1983 under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The plaintiff-opp. party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for more than two months, personal necessity, expiry of the terms of the lease and other grounds. He also prayed for a decree of Rs. 7,200/ - being the arrears of rent for the period from Feb. 1980 to January, 1983. On 15-3-1984 the plaintiff-opp. party filed a petition under Section 15 of the Act for payment of arrears of rent from Feb. 1980 to January 1983, as well as current and future rent. The Court below after hearing the parties, by ord...
Tag this Judgment!Atma Prasad Singh Vs. Jhubal Sah and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The first party-petitioner in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the order, dated 25.8.1994 passed by Sri Navratna Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Nagar Utari in Misc. Case No. 857 of 1984, whereby the opposite parties No. 24 to 28 herein have been added as third party to the proceeding.2. By order, dated 25.11.1994, this Court issued notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why this application be not admitted and/or, if possible, be not disposed of at the admission stage itself. On service of notice, some of the opposite parties, including opposite parties No. 24 to 28, who were added as third party to the proceeding by the impugned order, appeared, whereas the other opposite parties did not appear. Some of them were reported to be dead and steps for fresh service of notice were taken against those on whom notice c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Singh Vs. Election Commission and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
N. Pandey, J.1. The salient and meaningful questions which arise for determination before this Full Bench may be formulated in the following terms:(i) Whether an owner of a vehicle, which was requisitioned by the State Government under Section 160 read with Section 161 (1) and (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in the event of an accident on election duty, is entitled to compensation and, if so, from whom?(ii) If it is contended that Section 160 read with Section 161 (1) and (2) of the Act only provides for hire charges but no compensation, even due to loss or damage, whether such provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of Article 19 read with Article 300A of the Constitution?2. The relevant facts of the case are not in serious dispute and, therefore, may be noticed with relative brevity. The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. BHD 7273. The said vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Singh Vs. the Election Commission and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
N. Pandey, J.1. The salient and meaningful questions which arise for determination before this Full Bench may be formulated in the following terms: (i) Whether an owner of a vehicle, which was requisitioned by the State Government under Section 160 read with Section 161 (1) and (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), in the event of an accident on election duty, is entitled to compensation and, if so, from whom ?(ii) If it is contended that Section 160 read with Section 161 (1) and (2) of the Act only provides for hire charges but no compensation, even due to loss or damages, whether such provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of Article 19 read with Article 300A of the Constitution ?2. The relevant facts of the case are not in serious dispute and, therefore, may be noticed with relative brevity. The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. BHD 7273. The said vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Sao Vs. Jagarnath Mishra
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This Revision has been preferred by the above named petitioner, who happened to be the defendant in Eviction Suit No. 8 of 1988 before the Munsif at Daltonganj.2. The suit for eviction was filed but the Opposite party-plaintiff for ejectment of the petition-defendant from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide necessity as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) of the B.B.C. Act. The suit proceeded under Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. In contesting the suit, the defendant took the plea that the contiguous north shop remained vacant belonging to the plaintiff-Opposite party and as such his son Ajay could have started his business in that adjacent shop room north to the suit premises and as such it was pleaded that there was no bonafide necessity of the plaintiff rather with such plea of necessity, he had filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant-petitioner. From the plaintiffs side, it was contended that the contiguous north room of the said shop house was not vacan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »