Patna Court May 1998 Judgments
Birbal Yadav Vs. Suchan Thakur and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-08-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22-2-1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madhepura, in Title Suit No. 55 of 1991 rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for a decree for specific performance of contract between him and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit lands measuring 2 Bighas, 17 Kathas and 4 dhoors. The plaintiffs case is that by virtue of an agreement dated 28-10-1988, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell and transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on consideration of Rs. 53,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 34,000/- was paid as advance and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The vendors-defendant Nos. 1 and. 2 appeared and filed written statement slating, inter alia, that the suit land had been sold to various persons. The plaintiffs case is ...
Tag this Judgment!Akloo Sada Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-08-1998
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ford five years.2. According to the prosecution case in the night between June 5 and 6, 1976, a dacoity was commited in the house of the informant Yogendra Yadav, PW 1. The miscreants apart from looting the household articles were looking for the informant's father Mauje Lal. On finding him, they assaulted him with lathis and sticks and one of them also fired a short at him. Among the miscreants, the informant (and other members of his family) identified some dacoits including the present appellant. In his fardbeyan the appellant gave a list of the articles looted away and also stated that his family was having some dispute with the co-accused Sheonandan Yadav and it was his belief that Sheonandan Yadav had got the dacoity commited with the aid of some groups of dacoits.3. The appellant who was named in the F.I.R. was arrested on 20-6-76 and was released o...
Tag this Judgment!Hathwa Vanaspati Limited Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Recons ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-06-1998
1. This Letters Patent appeal preferred by the appellant company is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Judge of this court, dated 24 May, 1996, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant company being CWJC No. 3485 of 1994, whereby the appellant company had prayed for quashing of the order, dated 22 April, 1992, passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR') and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'the appellate authority'). The petitioner had also prayed for other consequential reliefs, but had primarily challenged the correctness of the order passed by the BIFR which had directed its opinion to be forwarded to this court under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to the effect that the sick industrial company, namely, the appellant company, should be wound up as the case of the appellant company had been found ...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-06-1998
R.N. Sahay, J.1. The sole appellant Janardan Singh has been sentenced imprisonment for life having been charged under Section 302/149, IPC.2. The occurrence which was subject matter of the charge against the appellant took place on 30.1.1982 in a High School known as Raj Kuer Vidya Mandir, Gopalpur. The victim of the occurrence was Jungi Prasad Singh son of the informant. The deceased was done to death in a most brutal and cruel manner as would appear from the version given out by the informant in his Jardbeyan as narrated by the trial Judge in the opening paragraph of his judgment. It would be useful to extract the said paragraph hereunder:In this fardbeyan Ram Pal Singh has stated that 30.1.1982 was the day of celebration of Sarswati Puja and on that occasion a ceremony was organised by Gopalpur High School which was known as Raj Kuer Vidya Mandir and the informant's son Jungi Pd. Singh had gone to participate in the celebration by Jeep at 2.30 p.m. at about 4.30 p.m. when prasad di...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kant Upadhaya Vs. Sideshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-06-1998
B.P. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and Award dated 20th December, 1996, of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, presided over by Shri Bishwanath Prasad Singh, 1st Additional District Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj, in V.M. Case No. 16 of 1987.2. It appears that the appellant has suffered some loss on account of injury caused to him in an accident. He is said to have been hit by a car, being registration No. B.P.N. 36 belonging to respondent No. 1 and ensured by respondent No. 2. It appears that the appellant has remained confined in the Hospital for a period which is a little less than eight months. However, from the impugned order of the lower court it appears that he was hospitalised for a period of six months. The impugned award has been challenged regarding the quantum of compensation.3. It is submitted that the appellant happened to be a contractor having an income of Rs. 30,000/- per year and, therefore, his pecuniary loss was to the tune of abou...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchi House Owners Association Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-05-1998
1. The petitioner claims to be an Association espousing the cause of house owners of Ranchi. It has filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) to determine the annual rental value of the holdings in accordance with the rules framed by the Government of Bihar under the Patna Municipal Corporation Act.2. The petitioner filed a writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 586 of 1996 (R), before this Court earlier seeking the same relief, which is claimed in the present writ petition. That writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 26.6.1997. The judgment is reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 155. The grievance of the petitioner is that this Court while deciding the previous writ petition did not deal with and decide the two points/grounds raised therein. Hence the necessity for filling the second writ petition. In this connection paragraph No. 2 of the present writ petition is reproduced below:That it...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prakash Mathur Alias Ladlay Mathur Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-04-1998
Narayan Rao, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 17.8.1990 for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, stating therein, inter alia, that the petitioner had telephoned the complainant informing him. that he had acquired the distribution right of picture 'Santosh' in the State of Bihar. He had assured the complainant on telephone that he needed Rs. 60,000/- for releasing that picture and he would definitely hand over the print to him on 3.3.1989 for exhibition. On 21.2.1989, all the accused persons, including the petitioner, came to Gaya at the residence of the complainant where a contract was concluded in between the accused persons and the complainant and the complainant paid Rs. 40,000/- by a demand draft and also paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Jainath Chaudhary @ Jainath Yadav and ors. Vs. Ram Tapesa Bharti and o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Title Suit No. 140 of 1967 was filed by the original plaintiff, Jagdeo Chaudhary for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 7.4.1956 said to be executed by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 null and void and not binding on him. The suit was dismissed on 21.7.1982. The plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 102 of 1982 in the Court of District Judge, Siwan against the said judgment and decree.2. During pendency of the appeal Jagdeo Chaudhary died leaving behind a widow two minor sons and one minor daughter, who were substituted. However, on 29.9.1986 the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.3. An application under Order XL1 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for readmission of the appeal. It was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1988.4. By the impugned order dated 29.2.1992, the Court below came to conclusion that the widow of the sole appellant late Jagdeo Chaudhary, namely, Mostt. Etwaria who was substituted in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Prasad and ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar Sinha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Partition Suit No. 353 of 1994 the plaintiffs filed a petition for interim injunction to restrain the defendants first and second parties from alienating and/or making new constructions over Schedule I property.2. By the impugned order dated 29.3.1996 the prayer was allowed and the defendants first and second parties were restrained either from alienating or making new constructions or demolishing existing structures over Schedule I property, during pendency of the suit.3. The defendants second party have preferred this appeal against the said order, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. I find that at the time of admission of the instant appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code the following interim orders pending the Appeal was passed by this Court:During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants, if so required, may make construction over the suit land but they will not execute any transfer deed.5. After hearing the parties at leng...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Malti Devi Vs. WaldIn Mian
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant field Title Suit No. 121 of 1988 against the defendant-respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land, detailed in Schedule II to the plaint.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had encroached South-Western portion of Plot No. 1533/1 as also a portion of Plot No. 1532, detailed in Schedule III to the plaint, which was a Public Rasta.3. The plaintiff claimed the said Plot No. 1533/1 to have purchased by two registered sale deed dated 30.3.1971 and 17.6.1971 (Exts. 2 and 2/a). She claimed that by virtue of the aforesaid encroachment and constructions by the defendant, her egress and ingress from orchard on Plot No. 1533/1 to the road was blocked.4. The defendant did not appear to contest the suit. The suit was, therefore, decreed ex-parte on 28.6.1989 with a direction to the defendant to remove his illegal encroachment from the plaintiff's land.5. According to the plaintiff, as her suit was decreed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »