Patna Court February 1996 Judgments
Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.1. Impugning the order dated 22.12.1995 passed in CWJC No. 3341/95 (R), the petitioner/appellant has preferred this LPA.2. In the writ application the orders dated 14.11.1995 and 15.1.1995 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively were impugned, by reason of which the office and godown of the petitioner for storing liquified petroleum Gas (LPG) were sealed and closed. A prayer was also made for quashing the report dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure-4).3. The petitioner was granted a licence for distributing LPG to the consumers by the Indian Oil Corporation for the Municipality of Garhwa town. The deputy Collector of Garhwa was deputed by the Deputy Commissioner to supervise the distribution work of the petitioner. One Nathun Prasad Keshari lodged a complaint against the petitioner for doing black marketing in LPG arid on the basis of the said complaint; the respondent No. 2 directed the Block Supply Officer and Supply Inspector to inspect all the documents and regis...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The petitioner filed Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1992 against the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 eviction under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was decreed on 18.2.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner levied Execution Case No. 4 of 1994 for execution of the said decree, which is pending disposal in the court of the Second Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh.2. In the meantime, the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1994 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, against the petitioner, with respect to the same property which was the subject matter of Eviction Suit No. 4 1992, for declaration of title as well as declaration of the two sale does dated 28.12.1973 and 19.4.1985 executed in favour of the petitioner relating to the property in question and for setting aside the decree dated 18.12.1993 passed in favour of the petitioner in the said Eviction Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Sharma and ors. Vs. Bharat Kishore Mahto and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.9.1979 passed by the then 1st Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 82 of 1979, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners from the order dated 19.7.1979 passed by the then Munsif, Baghmara at Dhanbad in Execution Case No. 15 of 1975 has 'been dismissed.2. The opposite parties-decree holders got a decree in Title Suit No. 96 of 1960 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession over the land described in the Schedule of the plaint.3. A Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was appointed during the pendency of the suit and the Pleader Commissioner's report was accepted by the original court in respect of the identity and measurement of the plot as contained in the Schedule of the plaint. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties on 8.4.1963. The petitioners who were defendants in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Parsu Ram Mahto and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal Mahto
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.80 and 5.3.80 respectively in Title suit No. 147/14 of 1975/1978 passed by Sri Ram Chandra prasad, the then Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit lands, details of which were given in the schedule of the plaint and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the same and for any other reliefs, if deemed fit and proper.3. It is admitted that parties are Kurmi Mahto and according to the plaintiffs, they are Kurmabansi Khhatriya cast Hindus governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. But they are governed in respect of inheritance by the rule of primogeniture. One Mangal Mahato was the predeccesor in interest of both the plaintiffs and the defendant, He being the common ancest...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Jha and Vs. H.D. Tanpe and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
J.N. Dubey, J.1. The point for determination in these two writ petitions being common they are being disposed of by a common judgment2. It appears that the petitioners, R.K. Jha and K.T.V Prasad, were working as Medical Sales Representatives in Patna Depot of M/s Maharashtra Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Nagpur (for short 'Company'). On March 20, 1989 they were transferred from there to Kolhapur and Moradabad Depot of the Company, respectively. They raised a dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna, in which reconciliation proceedings were initiated. In the meantime, the company vide its order dated September 5, 1990 directed them to join their new places of posting immediately failing which their services would stand terminated . On November 5, 1990 their services were terminated on the ground that they failed to join their new places of posting. They filed complaints under Section26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 before the respondent No.4, the Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Jehal Mahto Vs. Mahabir Mahto and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This Revision petition has been preferred by the abovenamed plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 26.8.1991 passed by Munsif, Koderma in Title Suit No. 40 of 1987 on the ground that without appreciating the orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision application No. 358 of 1991 (R), the learned court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for recording his objection and giving opportunity for consideration of his objection regarding the admissibility of the document.2. Mr. P.C. Roy appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the earlier order passed in the Civil Revision, had given direction to the court to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, but I do not find any such direction was given this Court to the lower court rather direction was given to the plaintiff-petitioner in the following manner:The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event, the same document should have been marked with objection. In my o...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarnath Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. In this application for a writ of hebeas corpus the detenu petitioner who is detained in Chas Jail vide detention order dated 20.8.1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Bokaro purporting to be under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter it shall be referred to as 'the Act), has challenged the validity of detention mainly on three grounds.2. The Ist ground is that he does not come within the definition of 'anti social element' as defined in Section 2(i)(c) of the Act. The second ground of challenge is there has been inordinate delay of 43 days in disposing of his representation which by itself renders detention illegal. The third ground is the detention order has been passed mala fide to prevent him from carrying on his trade union activities.3. The petitioner is the Secretary of Bermo Block of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Mardi), a registered political party by the Election Commission of India. He is also a active member of Trade Union 'Jhar...
Tag this Judgment!Ashis Investment Ltd. Vs. Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This Revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 4.2.1991 passed by the then judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1991, whereby the injunction granted by the original court i.e. Sub Judge, I, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 49/91 in favour of plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated 15.5.1991 was set aside.2. The admitted position remains that the plaintiff-petitioner came to possess the suit premises within the Namkum Industrial Area on settlement being made one Ganesh Kumar and that the Ganesh was a settlee under the Opposite Party--RIADA. That Ganesh was an employee of the petitioner and the settlement of the land with the petitioner was made on monthly rental basis and then the petitioner constructed a Pucca house thereon, but as because of some mischievous deeds, petitioner-plaintiff removed the said Ganesh from its services. Ganesh surrendered his settlement to the defendant--R.I.A.D.A. and pressed on the defendant for ousting the plaintiff-petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Kalawati Devi Vs. Zawahirul Nisan and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of the Additional Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad dated 22.4.1994 whereby the claim of the appellant for compensation has been awarded to the extent of Rs. 57,600/- only against the owner of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal having absolved the insurer from the liability of compensation. The appellant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined by the Tri- bunal and the decision that the insurer was not liable in the facts of the case has filed this appeal. The appellant had claimed com- pensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by this Court.2. The appellant is the widow of Raju Saom, a vegetable merchant. He hired a public carrier goods vehicle bearing the registration No. BRW 2895 on 18.4.1990 for transporting vegetable from Jharia to Saharpura Bazar. He was accompanying the goods. The truck met with accident on way, Raju...
Tag this Judgment!O.C. Corporation and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.1. In the batch of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions ofSub-section (2a) and Sub-section (2b) of Section 31 of the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter mentioned as the 'Act') and the rules framed there under on the following grounds:(i) 'The provisions of Sub-section (2a) and Sub-section (2b) of Section 31 of the Act are unconstitutional in as much as the provisions are beyond the ambit of the legislative jurisdiction of the State as provided under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.(ii) Power to seize and confiscate and levy penalty in respect of goods carried in the vehicle whether sold or not within the State of Bihar as contemplated under Sub-section (2B) and Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act for contravention of Sub-section (2a) of Section 31 of the Act is not ancillary to power to levy sales tax conferred to the State Legislature under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »