Patna Court March 1997 Judgments
Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
A. Alam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 8-4-1996 (Annexure 1) passed by the Chairman, Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board in Appeal Case No. 1/1996. By the impugned order, the Chairman cancelled the licence granted by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Buxar to the petitioner to hold Mela on certain lands claimed by him. The impugned order was passed on a memorandum filed by one Surendra Mohan Singh (not a party respondent to this writ petition); from the cause title and the operative portion of the impugned order, it appears that the memorandum was registered in the office as an appeal under Rule 129 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules and it was dealt with by the Chairman as such. It may also be appropriately, observed here that though arguments were advanced at some length on the merits of the impugned order, that is, regarding the validity of the reasons assigned for cancelling the licence, it later turned out that the order ma...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Mahto and ors. Vs. Hiralal Verma and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This civil revision application has been preferred against the order dated 28-6-1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th court, Hazaribagh. The back ground and the history of the case are necessary to be reiterated for considering the circumstances of the case,2. The predecessor of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 Giani Ram instituted Partition Suit No. 9 of 1956, before the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh in which the petitioners were arrayed an defendants No. 15 to 18. The said suit was contested by the defendants by raising a plea that Giani Ram had no interest in the suit property. During the proceeding of the suit, opposite party No. 5 (Baikunth Nath De) was appointed as receiver but as he went to jail in some criminal cases, the plaintiff Giani Ram was appointed as receiver by the court's order. There receiver remained in possession of the entire properties as required and practically the court had managed the properties through the receiver Giani Ram. It is alle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›