Patna Court January 1998 Judgments
Sk. NazmuddIn Vs. Sk. NazmuddIn and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-30-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant lost Title Suit No. 14 of 1962/12 of 1963 and thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 30 of 1967, which was pursued deligently till it was transferred by order dated 4.7.1972 from the Court of District Judge, Godda to the Court of Additional District Judge. The records of the appeal was received in the Court of Additional District Judge on 25.7.1972 and the next date of hearing of the appeal was fixed on 25.8.1972. On 25.8.1972 the appeal was called out, but nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and as such the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. It appears that on 21.9.1972 on behalf of the appellant, a petition under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for readmission of the appeal, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 7 of 1972.2. On behalf of the appellant, it was said that the pairvikar of the appeal was ill and as such he did not present himself on 25.8.1972, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal.3...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. In the present case the judgment/directions of the Apex Court in the cast of 'Common Cause' A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1996 (2) East Cr. C.129 (SC) : (1996) 2 BLJR 1025 (SC) : 1996 All JIC 601 (SC) and 1997 (1) Eastern Criminal Cases 296 (SC) : (1997) All, JIC 278 (SC), are required to be interpreted in the following facts and circumstances:2. The petitioner was proceeded for an offence under Section 304A read with Section 287 of the Indian Penal Code in Chas P.S. Case No. 114/87 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1210/B/87 and on 5.5.88 after submission of charge sheet cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections was taken and on 25.6.88 summons were issued to him for appearing on 11.10.88. The order sheet of the lower Court shows that on 16.12.89 warrant of arrest was issued and since than the trial could not proceed due to non-service of summons and execution of warrant of arrest. On 20.12.95 fresh ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Choudhary Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
1. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.6.1986 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions. Trial No. 130 of 1987 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 8.5.1980 one Sheo Dhari Chaudhari along with his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, Ram Kishun Chaudhary, Raju Ram Pal land Ram Roop, the Chaukidar took the dead body of Raudi Chaudhary on a bullock cart to the police station and lodged F.I.R. at about 6 p.m.. stating therein that yesterday i.e. on 7.5.1980 he was returning to his house from Bhagalpur Kachahh and reached Goradih Hatia on way to his house where his uncle Raudi Chaudhary was selling vegetables. His nephew Gauri Shankar was with him. He saw Ganesh Chaudhary in Goradih Hatia. He, his uncle Raudi Chaudhary, his nephew Gauri Shankar Chaudhary were coming to his vil...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Mimatsingka Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-27-1998
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. All these petitions have been heard together as common questions of law and facts are involved and this order will govern all the aforesaid cases.2. In all these cases the prayer has been made to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the orders taking cognizance under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.3. All the cases are outcome of complaints filed by the complainant before the C.J.M. Dhanbad alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners do the business of financing vehicles and also financed the complainant's personal and commercial dumper. He had prior acquaintenance and intimacy with the petitioner and on 12.9.1994 at about 4 p.m., when the petitioner-accused, along with others, was going from Chirkunda, the complainant out of respect, stopped his motor in order to wish. After exchange of greetings the petitioner discussed about the business with the complainant regarding transporting etc. Further statement in paragraph 4 of the complai...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Archana Kumari and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-27-1998
Lok Nath Prasad, J.1. M.A. Nos. 199 to 202 of 1994 (R) were taken up together as all these four appeals had arisen from the common judgment dated 29.6.1994 passed by Mr. B.K. Sinha, 2nd Addl. District Judge, Chaibasa-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal thereby and there under the M.J.C. Case Nos. 22 to 25 of 1989 were disposed of by the common judgment by the Tribunal and compensation was allowed in part. This common judgment will dispose of all these four appeals.2. The fact in short for the purpose of these appeals is that one Upendra Jha along with his wife Geeta Jha and two minor sons, namely, Chintu Jha aged 10 years and Mintu Jha aged 6 years were going together after hiring a Tempo van bearing registration No. BPT 6184 on 21.1.1989 towards Jamshedpur side from Gamaria. When the Tempo reached near dairy farm on Gamaria-Jamshedpur road then at about 9 a.m. or so Matador bearing No. BPJ 873 came from behind with a great speed and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Bearings Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-25-1998
Loknath Prasad, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the portion of supplementary bills raised by the Electricity Board in respect of consumer No. R/2252 for the period February 1990 to May, 1990, that is Annexures 4 to 7.2. The Fact, in short, for the purpose of this application is that the petitioners-factory was inspected on 25.10.1989 by the Vigilance wing of the Electricity Board and it was detected that the meter installed in the factory was running slowly, that is, towards lesser side to the extent of 5.493%. Accordingly, on the Vigilance report a fresh bill was raised making supplementary claim in the extent of about 5% of the energy consumed and previously already mentioned in the bill, mainly on the ground that the meter was defective and running slowly. So far the supplementary demand for excess payment of energy charges to the tune of about 5% for the period February, 1982 to September, 1989 are concerned, the petitioner-company preferred a ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Jha and ors. Vs. Shyam Bihari Mishra and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 16.2.96 passed by Subjudge-III, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 79/77 whereby and whereunder while allowing the application filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 dismissed the suit having been abated as a whole under the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff/petitioners filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of their right title and interest as occupancy raiyat over the suit land making out a case that the suit plot was settled sometime in the year 1919 in favour of the father of plaintiff No. 1 and the petitioners' ancestors had been coming in possession of portion of the suit land. The plaintiffs further case was that after the abolition of Zamindari petitioners became the raiyat of the State of Bihar and have been coming in possession of the suit land for many decades. It was alleged that some of the co-sharers of the Tauzi in question got a partition suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Chutar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
A.K. Prasad, J. 1. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition by the sole petitioner is directed against the order dated 28.11.1997 (Annexure 2) in Nawadih P.S. Case No. 81 of 1997, under Sections 304B, 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmo, whereby and whereunder he did not accept the bail bond on behalf of the petitioner-accused which had been furnished on 26.11.1997 in the light of the earlier order made on 25.11.1997 under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code' for short) for his release on bail. 3. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute lie in a narrow compass. It is alleged in the Fardbeyan of Deo Narayan Mahto, which was recorded on 24.8.1997 (vide Annexure 1), on the basis of which Nawadih P.S. Case No. 81 of 1997 came to be in...
Tag this Judgment!Sone Lal Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Laro Devi and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil Revision application, at the instance of Defendants 1 and 5, is directed against the order dated 5.3.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Samastipur, in partition suit No. 37 of 1992, by which prayer made by Opp. party No. 1 (Smt. Laro Devi) to be added and substituted as plaintiff in the suit has been allowed.2. The sole original plaintiff Smt. Dayabanti Devi filed the aforesaid suit for partition of her share to the extent of 5/- annas in the suit properties left behind by her husband Jeetan Mahto, in the said suit prayer was also made to a declaration that the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 1.7.1988 was not binding on it. The case of the deceased plaintiff was that one Nirdhan Mahto common ancestor died having behind his two sons, namely, Jeetan Mahto and Chhatri Mahto. Chatri Mahto died issueless Jeetan Mahto died on 10.1.1958 leaving behind his widow, the plaintiff and two sons, namely defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and one daughter (defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Sarad Chandra Jha Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
V.N. Mishra, Member: 1. The facts of the present complaint case are that one Shri Sharad Chandra Jha, an ex-service man got transport loan amounting to Rs. 2,86,284.50 from Bihar State Financial Corporation for purchase of Tata Truck model SE 1210/42 GBC 30. Full payment of Rs. 3,24,774/- for supply of the above model was made by the complainant to M/s. R.S. Himat Singka and Company, opposite party No. 2, the main dealer of the said model of truck, who granted receipt No. 490 dated 18.3.1991 in token of receipt of payment. On not getting the delivery of the truck, the complainant wrote to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.-opposite party No. 1, on 14.1.1991 to expedite delivery through their main distributor, the opposite party No. 2, who had not supplied the truck so far inspite of full payment made about five months before. The opposite party No. 2 had sent delivery letter dated 25.3.1991 form their Bilaspur office through their Dumka delivery office of sub-dealer M/s. Mithila ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »