Patna Court August 1997 Judgments
Mahendra Prasad Barnwal and anr. Vs. Assistant Engineer, National High ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-09-1997
P.K. Deb, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.2.97 passed by the Ist Additional Judge, Giridih, dismissing the Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1997 preferred by the petitioners affiring the order dated 28.1.97 passed by the Munsif Incharge, Giridih, in Title suit No. 1 of 1997 whereby the prayer for injunction of the petitioners has been rejected.2. There is chequered history of the case. The dispute is in respect of two plots of land which the Govt. demands to be the Govt. land while the petitioners contend the same to be in their continuous possession for last sixty five years being contiguous to their raiyati land. On previous occasion also for taking possession over the suit land, the Govt. filed a suit against the predecessor of the plaintiff-petitioners but the suit was dismissed and appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed. After that, the State- authorities wanted to proceed under the Land Encroachment Proceeding and B.P.L.E. case was al...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Om Prakash Mahansaria Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Loknath Prasad, J.1. This revision is directed against the ex-parte order dated 27.2.97 passed by S.D.M., Sadar Ranchi i.e. O.P. No. 2 in Case No. M/l932/96 which was a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and through this order the petitioner was directed to remove alleged public nuisance from a public place.2. The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that O.Ps. of this case i.e. Ram Bilas Jalan and others filed a petition before the Section D.M. Sadar alleging therein that they had purchased different sub plots of Plot No. 1717 under Ward No. 1 of Ranchi Municipality from one Amiya Kumar Banerjee and the vendor for convenience of all the purchasers made arrangement for a public drain for drainage of the rainy water and other refuse, 96 'long and 3' wide which goes up to the main road i.e. kutchehry road, Similarly the vendor and rightful owner made an arrangement of a public way for all the purchasers having 18' wide and 96' long for the pas...
Tag this Judgment!Saitun Nisa Vs. Triloki Vishwakarma Alias Triloki Mistri
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court arises out of the judgment dated 13.2.1990 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A. No. 42 of 1984 (R) by which the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in T.S. No. 220 or 1982 decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.2. The plain tiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit for a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.5.1979, executed by the defendant agreeing to transfer 854. Sq. feet of land comprised within Municipal Survey Plot No. 206 bearing Holding No. 583 within Ward No. 5 of Ranchi Municipality.3. The plaintiff's case, inter alia, was that out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 21,500/- a sum of Rs. 13,500/- was paid in advance and further a sum of Rs. 600/- was also paid on 16.51979. The balance amount was agreed to be paid...
Tag this Judgment!Rabinder Singh Vs. M. Maheshwar Rao and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. These two civil revision applications have been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 5 of 1996 challenging the order dated 18.2.1997 passed by the Sub Judge-I, at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1996. By the said impugned order, the learned court below refused to recall its order dated 23.1.1996 passed in title Suit No. 5 of 1996 allowing the plaintiff Opposite- Parties to sue the defendants as indigent persons.2. The plaintiff Opposite-Parties filed the aforementioned title suit No. 5 of 1996 in the court of the Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur for the relief, inter alia, that it be declared that the defendant No. 2 has no right to alienate the suit property to a person other than the heirs of M.V. Ramaiya and for a declaration that the alienation, if any, made by the plaintiff is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The plaintiff also claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction in the Schedule B property. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Devi and ors. Vs. Bhuneshwar Shah and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Loknath Prasad, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing the owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants, the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants and not by the owner of the vehicle against whom the impugned order has been passed.2. The contention of Mr. Lal is that as because it will take much time for realising the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the appellants have moved this Court taking a plea that in an order under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company can also be made liable.3. Provisions of appeal under Motor Vehicles Act is Section 173, which, inter alia, postulates that any person aggrieved by an award of a Claim Tribunal, may within 90 days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Thus locus standi is fixed i.e. the person who is aggrieved by an award of the Tribunal.4. Admittedly the claimants are not aggrieved inasmuch as they a...
Tag this Judgment!Manraj and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code is for quashing the cognizance order dated 11.8.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in Chatra P.S. Case No. 103 of 1991 (G.R. No. 146/91) under Section 504/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. To appreciate the submissions made for and on behalf of the petitioners, the facts or the case are required to be reiterated. The Opposite Party No. 2 who happens to be a correspondent of the daily Newspaper 'RANCHI EXPRESS' filed Complainant Petition No. 146 of 1991 on 29.8.1991 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, contending, inter-alia, that on 28.8.1991 at 2 p.m., the complainant alongwith another correspondent who happens to be the sole witness of the incident of daily Newspaper, 'PRABHAT KHABAR' had gone to the office of petitioner No. 1 to make an enquiry from him regarding the alleged bunglings and illegalities in auctioning a Government Jeep by him and a...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
P.I. Sarkar, J.1. Both the criminal appeals have been taken up together as they arise out of a common judgment passed by Sri N.N. Singh, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui, in Sessions Case No. 368/93 on 26.4.94.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.4.92 Sri Navin Kumar Singh of village Kharagpur, brother of the deceased Sulekha Devi gave statement before S.I. Tarini Singh of Jamui Police Station wherein he stated that his sister Sulekha Devi was married with Kaushal Singh (appellant in Cr. Appl. No. 258/94) son of Satya Narayan Singh @ Tahlu Singh in the year 1988. The second marriage (Gauna) was also performed after two years of the marriage. He further stated that dispute arose over the demand of dowry by the father-in-law, husband, mother-in-law and the Gotni (wife of the brother of the husband of the deceased) and they used to torture and assault his sister Sulekha Devi. Kaushal Singh and his brother's wife used to demand two bighas of land or a tractor for keeping ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.1. The short but interesting question which arises for adjudication in this writ application is as to whether the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant belonging to the petitioner will come within the jurisdiction of the Central Government and/or State Government for the purpose of fixing and regulating the Wages of its Employees working with the plant, in question. The facts are not in dispute which are as follows:2. The petitioner Anil Agrawal, who is the proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Minerals, Bar-ganda, P.O. Giridih, District Giridih (T), runs the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant at Ma-heshmunda. The petitioner is also a lessee with respect to certain minor minerals (Stone Boulders) under the lease granted by the State of Bi-har which is situated in the district of Giridih. Labourers are separately engaged both in the Mines for extracting stone boulders as well as at his crusher plant at Maheshmunda and the wages of the employees working with the plant are being...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Nakul D. Kamani
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Narayan Roy, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 5.2.1990, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No. 2 of 1988, T.R. No. 1786 of 1989 by which the learned Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has discharged the accused-opposite party from the charges under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that a complaint petition was filed by the complainant-petitioner against the accused-opposite party for an offence under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein, inter alia, that accused opposite party Nakul D. Kamani was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Friends Press Metal Private Ltd. and in such capacity he took over charge from Mrs. Sarswati Devi on 2.6.1986. The accused was authorized by a resolution of the said concern to operate all the Bank accounts of the Company, which was...
Tag this Judgment!Sunith Kumar Mallik and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's occupancy rayati rights over their lands situated in Village Okni, Noora, Hazari in the district of Hazaribagh. All the petitioners are the resident of different mohalla in the town of Hazaribagh.. It is stated that in the year 1765.00, the British Government took over the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The area of the Hazaribagh district was bifurcated into three estates namely Ramgarh Kendi and Kharagdiha and one Thanadari Jagir of Kunda on which no revenue was assessed. It is also alleged that in the year 1790, 465 Bighas of lands were acquired for the purpose of forming the Government Estate from the Ramgarh Estate for establishment of a cantonment. It is alleged that in the year 1842 the cantonment was abolished, but however, restored...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »