Patna Court February 1997 Judgments
Ram Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
P.K. Sarin, J.1. This criminal revision-application is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1988 passed VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. Ill of 1984 and affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by IIIrd Assistant Sessions Judge, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1981. The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and was sentenced to five years and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively for the said offences by the Trial Court.2. The petitioner, along with two other co-accused, was tried. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 379 and 148 of the Code. The other two co-accused were found guilty under Section 379 of the Code. The other two co-accused were released after admonition under Section 360(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The charge u...
Tag this Judgment!Hari NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
R.M. Prasad, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 25.11.1985 contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bihar. Headquarters at Patna purporting to be in exercise of the power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and the Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter preferred to as 'the Act') setting aside the order dated 13.8.1984 passed in Appeal No. 74/84-85 by the Dy. Director, Consolidation. Rohtas and confirming the order dated 3.3.1984 in case No. 38/83-84 passed by the Consolidation Officer Dehri purporting to be under Section 10-B of the Act, contained in Annexures 2 and 1, respectively.2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are descendants of their common ancestor Pratap Singh. The dispute is in respect of lands pertaining to revisional survey khata No. 209 and revisional survey plot Nos. 173 and 2010 comprising an area of 25 and 56 decimals, respectivel...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Subordinate Judge No. 1 and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.1. The appellant is Union of India in the Ministry of Railways through the General Manager, Eastern Railways.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.1995 of a learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ application of the appellant. In the writ application, the appellant had prayed, in effect, for transfer of proceeding or Execution case No. 4 of 1983 pending in the court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau, to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, in view of the provision of Section 29(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) which had come into force with effect from November 1, 1985.3. Learned Single Judge held that the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act did not apply in the present case. Section 29(1) is as under ;-Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cau...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. the Chief Inspectin ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing order dated October 5, 1985 issued by the Chief Inspecting Officer, Bihar, Respondent No. 1, whereby he has decided that Tata Main Hospital at Jamshedpur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Hospital') is an establishment within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act') and directed that the same be registered as an establishment under the Act.2. The short facts are that the Hospital was established around 1908 for providing medical facility to the employees as well as their family and dependents of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'TOCO'.) and its associated Companies namely, TELCO, Tata-Robins-Fraser, Tata-Ydoga, Indian Oxy-gen, Indian Cables, etc. Even according to the petitioner, Government employees are treated in the Hospital on payment of charges at the rate of Rs. 15 per day and apart from Government empl...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Musa Kazmi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. The controversy in this writ petition relates to the age of superannuation of the petitioner as Finance Officer of the Bihar Intermediate Council (called 'the Intermediate Council', in short). The background in which the controversy has arisen may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner was initially appointed in the Bhagalpur University as Junior Auditor on 24th March, 1965. He joined the L.N. Mithila University as Budget and Accounts officer on 1st May, 1973. He was appointed as Finance Officer in the intermediate Council for a period of six months in anticipation of concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission up to 7th March, 1981. Regular appointment to the said post was made on receipt of the recommendation of the Commission on 14th April, 1983. He continued to function on the post until the Intermediate Council decided to superannuate him on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31st January, 1997. There is no dispute about the date of birth in this case...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Refractories Ltd. and anr. Vs. R.K. Das, Proprietor, N. Das and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
B.P. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10-7-1989, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Monghyr, in Money Suit No. 53 of 1987, by which he has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the appellants for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellants for supply of some materials. Subsequently, because of delay in payment of the price of the materials plaintiff-respondent No. l field Money Suit No. 53 of 1987 in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Monghyr, praying for a decree of Rs. 76,666/- with interest thereon. The suit was filed on 2-9-1987 and after the notices were issued, the defendants (present appellants) appeared and filed a petition on 17-11-1987, purported to be a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, for staying of the suit. It was contended on behalf of the defendants-appellants that in view of the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mohali Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by Sri A.P.Ram, Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, S.T.No. 12 of 1994 by which the sole appellant was held guilty under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the evening of 12.4.1993, the informant Jhingi Birua alongwith her husband Raghu Birua, sister-in-law Dosma and other family members were in the house situate in the village Turi Sai, P.S. Kharsawan and the husband left the house at about 600 p.m. but he was in the village. It has. been alleged that the appellant, Krishna Mahali and one Manbodh Sarangi came and began to talk with the wife of the Bhainsur of the informant, but in the meantime, the husband of the informant came at about 7.30 p.m. and protested and asked the appellant and Manbodh to leave the house and this caused annoyance to the appellant and he went to his house and brought a knife...
Tag this Judgment!New National Stores and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
B. N. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application has been filed for quashing prosecution of the petitioners under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. It appears that for addition of a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the order of assessment the prosecution has been launched against the petitioners. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, in which it has been stated that for the same very addition a penalty proceeding was initiated and penalty was imposed, but on appeal being preferred before the Tribunal, the penalty has been cancelled on merits. It is well settled that the standard of proof in penalty proceedings is lighter than in criminal proceeding and since penalty has been cancelled on the merits, in my view, in the ends of justice, prosecution of the petitioners should be quashed. 4. Accordingly, the application is allowed and prosecution of the petitioners is hereby quashed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. and S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The appellant has impugned the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.10.96 passed in CWJC No. 1979 of 1996(R) by reason of which the writ application filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : Respondent No. 4 herein, being petitioner in the writ application, prayed before this Court that respondents 2 and 3 in particular, be directed to restore her name as one of the dealers in respect of the concerned Petrol Pump. Husband of the petitioner, as early as in the year, 1947, entered into an agreement with the erst-while Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited (now M.S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) relating to setting up of an outlet for Petrol and diesel on hire over his lease-hold premises. In the year, 1975, due to his ill-health, the husband of the petitioner entered into a partnership agreement with Ram Kumar Jain, the present appellant. Pursuant to...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jaiswal Medical Hall, Sisai and ors. and Kusa ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. and S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated August 18, 1987, and that dated April 10, 1989, passed by the learned Single Judges in two separate writ petitions challenging the notification dated July 18, 1980, issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (For short 'the Act') amending the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (For short 'the Rules') enhancing the fees payable for different licences granted under the Rules.2. As the preamble of the Act would show, it is an Act to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics. Sections 12, 18 and 33 of the Act empower the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Under Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act, the Central Government has power to make rule prescribing the forms of licences for various categories like manufacture for sale or for distribution of any specific ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »