Patna Court December 1997 Judgments
Gouri Shankar Mandal and ors. Vs. Bindeshwari Mandal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal was originally preferred by Defendant No. 1, appellant (Hansu Mandal), against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madhipura dated 31st July, 1970 in Title Suit No. 50 of 1964. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant (Hansu Mandal) died and his heirs were substituted.2. The main issue to be determined, whether the suit land is still joint family property and the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 (now deceased and substituted by her heirs) is entitled for 1/3rd share over the same.3.The Title suit aforesaid was filed by original plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 for partition of the lands shown in Schedule-A to the plaint.4. Admittedly, the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, original Defendant No. 1, appellant and deceased father of Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were full brothers. According to the plaintiff, they were members of joint family and suit lands were purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of different members of...
Tag this Judgment!Mir SalahuddIn Vs. Kesho Agrawal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5th May, 1971 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Purnea in Title Suit No. 36 of 1967.2. A suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 3rd March, 1967 was preferred by plaintiff-appellant with respect to lands and the house thereon described at Schedule-'A' to the plaint. The alternative relief for recovery of earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,500/- was also sought for.3. Admittedly, the suit land and house thereon belonged to defendants-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and his brother Megh Raj Agarwal, having an area of 0.16 decimal appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 6548 of Khata No. 2453. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that on negotiation, the land-holders Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Megh Raj Agarwal entered into an agreement on 2nd March, 1967 for sale of suit property with the plaintiff, which was registered on 3rd March, 1967 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Nath Dhut and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Yadav
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. This civil revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control, Act 1982 (in short, BBC Act) by the defendants arises from an order of eviction passed by the Munsif, Patna City against them in Title Eviction Suit No. 63/89.2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the afore-mentioned suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act. The suit was tried according to the special procedures laid down in Section 14 of the said Act. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises having area of 52' x 76' situate at Jhauganj in Patna City was allotted to his share in private partition in the family on 25.12.1969. His name was accordingly mutated in the records of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioners who were tenants in the premises from before started paying rent to him. After the partition the plaintiff started living along with his family members in a rented premises ow...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishna Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in the rank of Addl. District Magistrate/Senior Selection Grade, with effect from 1989-90 with all consequential benefits from the date when the persons junior to him have been promoted to the said grade.2. The petitioner is a member of the Bihar Administrative Service and joined as Sub-Deputy Collector in 1937 and he was notified as Deputy Collector in 1976. The petitioner was posted as the Block Development Officer Benipatti in the district of Madhubani some time in the year 1985. It is stated that the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat because of some ulterior motive reported some irregularities and on these allegation, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on 11.6.1986. Thereafter a preliminary enquiry was set up and the petitioner was exonerated in the said prelimina...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Laxmi Dhar Subudhi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these two writ applications, since common questions of law and facts are involved and a similar relief has been sought for, these applications are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the condition prescribed in paragraph 15.5 Clause (gha) of the prospectus wherein the age limit of 17 years as on 1.7.1997 has been fixed for appearing in the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 1997, (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'B.C.E.C.E. 1997) as one of the eligibility criteria for admission in session 1997-98, and for direction to fix the cut-off date as 31.12.1997 for completing 17 years of age for appearing in the said examination. Further, prayer has been made for directing respondent No. 3, Controller of Examination to allow the petitioners' son and daughter who have applied for appearing in the said examination and to publish their results.3. The case of the petitioners is that since long the respondents have fixe...
Tag this Judgment!Central Provident Fund Commissioner and anr. Vs. S.K. NasiruddIn Beedi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner impugning the judgment and order of a learned single Judge in C.W.J. C. No. 9880 of 1994, dated February 29, 19%, allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-S.K.Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Limited-and quashing the order dated June 2, 1994, determining the liability of the respondent, and the certificate dated September 27, 1994, issued to the recovery officer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 46,17,538.20, which was determined to be the provident fund and allied dues payable by the respondent under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The main question involved in the writ petition was as to whether the respondent was entitled to waiver in respect of deposit of the employees' contribution for the period from October, 1985, to May 3, 1993, during which period the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Srimant Kumar Choudhary Vs. Premlata Devi Ad ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for declaration of title over the suit properties detailed in Schedule 1 to the plaint against the defendants has been dismissed holding that the suit was barred by law of limitation and that the plaintiff did not acquire title to the suit property on the strength of the sale-deed dated 28.1.1970 (Ext. 3). The suit was also hit under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and was thus not maintainable.2. Admittedly Bhatu Choudhary of Dalsinghsarai had two sons, Bhaglu Choudhary and Murat Choudary. Bhaglu Choudhary died in the state of jointness with his brother. Murat Choudhary, leaving behind his son, Badri houdhary. Thereafter Murat Choudhary died issueless, leaving behind his widow, Champa Choudharain in the state of jointness with his nephew, Badri Choudhary, who had two sons, Ramchandra Choudhary the defendant No. 3 and Harihar Choudhary and a daughter Parwati. Harihar Choudhary left behind two sons Baijnath Choudhar...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babu Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.2.1991, passed by the competent authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the competent authority has directed the appellant insurance company to pay penalty and also the interest in exercise of its power under Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act.3. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant cannot be subjected to penalty and interest under Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act inasmuch as the appellant is only answerable to its liability under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act.4. It appears that the vehicle in question of whose driver was done to death, was insured with the appellant insurance company and the authority under the Act, therefore, fastened the liability upon the insurance company to pay the compensation already determined by it, vide order ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. Phatik Mandal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
P.K. Deb, J. 1. These 16 Revision petitions have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the Order dated 16.7.1994 passed in LA. Execution Case Nos. 56, 1559 of 1988, 9 of 1989, 57 of 1988, 14 of 1988, 55 of 1988, 47 of 1988, 48 of 1988, 51 of 1988, 50 of 1988, 52 of 1988, 13 of 1988, 58 of 1988, 8 of 1989, and 54 of 1988 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner as judgment debtor in all the above Execution cases under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the executability of the decree arisen out of L.A. reference case No. 90 of 1979.2. The facts in brief are that all the Execution cases arise out of the acquisition of 205.15 acres of land for the construction of Khudia Canal by virtue of a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Canal passed through 13 villages and, therefore, the acquisition of the land was made in 13 adjoining villages. The Land Acquisition authorities fixed the value ...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhinath Bhagat Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Bhagat and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. This civil revision by the defendant 1st party is directed against the order dated 13.6.97 passed by the 3rd Subordinate Judge, Godda, in Title Partition Suit No. 8 of 1990 by which the application to dismiss the suit as being not maintainable has been rejected.2. The suit is said to be barred in view of the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation No. 3 of 1872). Section 9 runs as follows:Power to order settlement.--The State Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette declare that a settlement shall be made of the whole or any part of the Santhal parganas for the purpose of ascertaining and recording the various interests and rights in the lands.Section 5 runs as follows:Every such decision, and every decision given in appeal therefrom, shall be certified by the said Court to the officer by whom the certificate mentioned in Sub-section (1) was made, or to such' officer as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »