Patna Court February 1996 Judgments
Binod Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. The present revision application is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.1988 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge XI at Patna whereby he has affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 394, I.P.C. and also the sentence to undergo R.I. for two years passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna on 30.6.1986 in G.R. No. 1743/83, Tr. No. 242/86.2. The prosecution case is that on 4.5.1983 at about 8.30 p.m., the informant Anil Ranjan was going along with one Sultan Mian of village Isopur to his village Gonpura and when they reached near the Aluminum Factory on Hinduni Road, four persons came from a field near the road and started flashing torch-light on them and surrounded them. The informant claimed to have identified the petitioners and one Shekhar Rai. Accused Binod Mahto (petitioner No. 1) is alleged to have abused the informant and gave Chhura blow in his abdomen and the rest three are alleged to have ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. NasiruddIn Beedi Merchant Ltd. Vs. Central Provident Fund Commisi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.1. The question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to waiver in respect deposit of the employees' contribution for the period from October, 1985 to 3.5.1983, during which period the petitioner could not and did not make deduction from the wage, of the home-workers employed through contractors for manufacture of beedi because of pendency of litigation on the question of applicability of the provision of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act') in respect of the home workers employed by the contractors.2. The petitioner is a limited company having its headquarters at Calcutta, which carries on business of manufacture and trade of Beedi. After receipt of the notice under the provision of the Act from the respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the petitioner challenged the notice in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4089 of 1988, contending, inter alia, th...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Prasun kumar Deb, J.1. The writ of habeas Corpus has been claimed by the above named petitioner for quashing the order dated 16-8.1995, passed by the District Magistrate, Bokaro (respondent No. 2) under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and the subsequent order dated 27.8.1995, by which the respondent No. 3 for and on behalf of the State of Bihar has confirmed the order of detention of the petitioner.2. The breif facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a resident of Bokaro district and according to him, he earns his livelihood by small business and also he works as an agent in Marketing Committee at Bermo within the district of Bokaro. By the impugned order dated 16.8.1995, respondent No. 2 ordered for detention of the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 labelling him as an anti social element and that his detention was necessary as his actions were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detent...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. the Regional Labour Commissioner (Ce ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway and by the Executive Engineer (Construction) (TPS), North Eastern Railways.2. The order under challenge is Annexure-1 dated September 28, 1984 whereby the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad, who is the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, decided the applications under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Minimum wages Act and passed the following operative order against the petitioners:'After hearing the applicant the opponent is directed to pay the difference of wages as mentioned in the claim application amounting to Rs. 3,892/- due to non-payment of minimum wages the employees have suffered hardships and mental agony. The payment of less than the minimum wages amount to treating the workers as bonded labour, crime against the society as well as violation of Article 23 of the Constitutio...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Choudhary and anr. Vs. Durga Pada Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1989 passed by Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, Additional Munsif, 1st Court, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 46 of 1985 whereby decree for eviction was passed against the defendants petitioners.2. The plaintiffs filled the above-mentioned eviction suit under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act) on the ground of personal necessity as envisaged under Section11(1)(c) of the Act. Originally one Shailendra Nath Gupta (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Gupta') was holding the laud as a sub-tenant under Mahtos and that Gupta had inducted the defendants-petitioners as tenant in the suit promises on a rental of Rs. 100/- per month. Gupta was being paid all rent by the defendants-petitioners. In the year 1984, Gupta sold the land and the houses to the plaintiffs-opposite parties under registered sale deed dated 20.11.1984 and information...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Chandra Mahato Alias N.C. Mahto Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Lok Nath Prasad, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.1989 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1993 through which the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was maintained and confirmed.2. The fact in short giving rise to this revision is that on 22.10.1978 at about 3 a.m. in the night the informant along with other police officials S.I. Tarni Prasad Yadav ASI Md. Mustafa were on patrolling duty and they were going towards Gohinbandh and had reached near Gohinbandh Railway Crossing they saw one person moving in suspicious circumstances with a bag in hand and seeing the police party he wanted to escape away. It has been alleged that after chase, that man was apprehended and from his possession about 500 grams of Gandhak like materials, 40 grams of potas like materials and two bundles of subtle, were found which were concealed in a bag and the informant suspe...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasi Ram Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This revision application is directed against the judgments of conviction and sentences passed in criminal case No. CII151/73 Tr. No. 1296783- by S.D.J.M., Katihar on 18.2.83 convicting the petitioner under Section 3(a) R.P. (U.P. Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years affirmed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr. Appl. No. 21/83.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on search being made to the house and godown of the petitioner certain railway properties were recovered and some them is alleged to were kept concealed under the earth and were brought out by digging the earth. A seizure list was prepared and the R.P.F. men brought those articles to their office at Katihar along with the petitioner. After enquiry a prosecution report was submitted and the learned sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, took cognizance in the case and the petitioner was put on trial.3. The defence of the petitioner was t...
Tag this Judgment!State (Through Cbi) Vs. S.J. Choudhary
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
J.S. Verma, J.1. The reference made in this appeal to the Constitution Bench is for deciding the important question of law : Whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872?2. The respondent-S.J. Choudhary was being tried in the Court of Add. Sessions Judge. New Delhi, on charges punishable under Section 302. I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983. The prosecution wanted to examine a typewriter expert for proof of certain incriminating facts against the respondent based on the identity of a typewriter on which a material document was alleged to have been typed. An objection was taken to the admissibility of the opinion evidence of the typewriter expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Evidence Act') based on the decision of this Court in Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and the trial Court upheld that objection, Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Kumar Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Ashish N. Trivedi, J.1.The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for allotment of L.I.G. flats in response to which the petitioner made an application dated 21.31985 and after completing all the necessary formalities deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money. It is alleged that constructions of flats had already been completed and were ready for allotment. A draw of lots was held on 20.8.1987 and 21.8.1987 and the petitioner was allotted L.I.G. Flat No. R-146 and the Respondents unnecessarily delayed the issuance of formal letters and it was by a letter dated 6.4.1990 (Annexure-1) that L.I.G. Flat No. R-146 was allotted to the petitioner on payment of Rs. 79,400/- (Approximately) and accordingly the petitioner deposited a sum. of Rs. 11,080/- on 7.5.1990. Since the petitioner did not want L.I.G. Flat No. R-146, he made an application dated 4.9.1990 (Annexure-2) for allotment of L.I.G. ...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Nath Jha Vs. Indu Shekhar Jha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of their half-share along with the defendants No. 7 and 8 against other defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. The defendant No. 3 has filed this application under Sections 22 to 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (herein after referred to as 'the code') for transfer the said Partition Suit from Ranchi to Sharsa.2. A copy of the plaint of the suit has been annexed to this application. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that Chandra Shekhar Jha and Indu Shekhar Jha are sons of late Raghunath Jha of village Satarwar, P.S. Mahishi, District Saharsa. The said Indu Shekhar Jha and his two sons are plaintiffs and his two other sons are defendants No. 7 and 8 and Chandra Shekhar Jha and his sons are defendants 1 to 6. The other defendants No. 9 to 17 are the purchasers. Both immovable and movable properties under partition have been detailed in Schedules B to H of the plaint. The properties, except these...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »