Patna Court September 1998 Judgments
Maya Murmu and ors. Vs. Ritu Rai Alias Ratto Rai and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The defendants/appellants have impugned the judgment and decree passed-in Title Appeal No. 185/20 of 1976/79 by reason of which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been reversed.2. During the pendency of this appeal some of the appellants and respondents having died, their heirs and legal representatives were substituted.3. While admitting this appeal the following substantial question of law was formulated:(i) Whether having lost the Misc. Case arising out of an application field under Order IX, filed Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit for setting aside the ex-parte order was maintainable on the ground of fraudulant service of notice of the title suit?However, at the time of hearing it was admitted at the Bar that further points of law are required to be gone into which are as follows:(i) Whether in view of the absence of any averment atleast of the details of fraud in the plaint, the respondents could have succeeded in the s...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
B.M. Lal, C.J.1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay of 679 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal.2. The impugned judgment was passed on 6th May, 1996 by the learned Writ Court and the present appeal has been filed on 15.5.98.3. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the writ application was disposed of by order dated 6th May, 1996 along with other analogous writ applications. The present appeal has been preferred on 15.5.98. A Letters Patent Appeal is to be preferred within 30 days from passing of the impugned judgment. If the said period of 30 days if deducted still the present appeal is barred by 679 days.4. In the present application for condoning the delay it has been stated that initially the State Government took a view that the order of the writ Court should be complied with. Subsequent thereto Screening Committee was constituted and the list of the petitioners in all the analogous app...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tuna Devi and ors. Vs. Kali Pada Deo and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1983 and 10.8.1983 respectively passed by 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, in Title (Partition Suit No. 27/9 of 1977/ 1981 whereby and where under the plaintiffs' suit for partition of Plot No. 7707 described in the Schedule of the plaint has been dismissed.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that under Khata No. 740 in Mouza Chas, Plot No. 7707 belonged to five brothers namely, Babu Lal Bouri, Bhuban Bouri, Nitai Bouri, Bindu Bouri and Mahindi Bouri. The names of five brothers were finally published in the record of rights. Babu Lai Bouri died issueless. Bhuban Bouri had a daughter Rohini by name and she was married to Chhakari Bouri (defendant No. 3). Rohini has a son Dapu Bouri. Rohini is dead. Nitai Bouri the third brother died without any issue. The fourth brother Bindu had a son Bhokhu by name. Bhokhu also died leaving behind Keli Bouri, defendant No. 4, as his heir. The fifth...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Sachdeva Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 1-9-1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Jamtara, Dumka in Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 38 of 1986, whereby and whereunder he has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff-Bank and ordered for transfer of the aforementioned suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and kept in his Court the counter claim of the defendants for trial and disposal.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. Plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1 State Bank of India instituted title (Mortgage) Suit No, 38 of 1986 seeking a relief of mortgage decree as contemplated under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC) and also for a money decree for recovery of loan amount. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement separately. Defendant-Opposite party No. 2, namely, M/s Raj Hans Steel Limited filed its written statement-cum-counter claim wherein the counter claim was valued at Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwar Prasad Sinha and ors. Vs. Awadh Prasad Sinha (Since Deceased ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 16.2.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 21.3.1995 passed by the Munsif, Muzaffarpur West, refusing to set aside the ex-parte order dated 17.2.1990 passed in Title Suit No. 45 of 1989.2. The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 45 of 1989 against the defendants (now deceased) namely, Inderashan Kuer and Sabuj Kuer, for declaration that the deed of gift dated 8.9.1978 said to be executed by Rampukari Kuer is forged, fabricated, illegal document and the defendant-lst party never acquired any right, title and interest of possession on the basis of the said deed of gift. Further declaration was sought for that the defendant 1st party had no right to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant-second party. The trial Court after issuing summons of the suit passed ex-parte decree on 17.2.1990. The original defendant filed an application...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Chief of Revenue, C ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 6-8-1988 passed by Shri Bishwanath Prasad, Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957, in Reference Case No, 1 of 1987.2. An area of 7.61 acres of land appertaining to Khata Nos. 1, 3 and 4 together with four Sakhua trees belonging to the original claimant Jitan Lal S/o Ganpat Lal of Village Dania, Police Station Gomia in the district of Giridih were acquired by the Central Government and after acquisition determined the valuation of the different kinds of lands on the following rates:Tand I & Paddy I: At the rate of Rs. 12,700/- per acre. Paddy II : At the rate of Rs. 7.940/- per acre Paddy III : At the rate of Rs. 6.350/- per acre Tanr II : At the rate of Rs. 3,175/- per acre Tanr III : At the rate of Rs. 1.588/- per acre. Parti Kadim : At the rate of Rs. 1.059/- per acre.3.Besides the above valuation, the Central Government has al...
Tag this Judgment!Mishra A.K. and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The order taking cognizance dated December 8, 1995 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been impugned by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. One Sachita Nand Singh, opposite party No. 2, being Factory Inspector of Ranchi Anchal No. 1. filed a complaint on July 5, 1995 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. showing the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 as the members of the Board of Directors and petitioner No. 10 as Manager of the Factory, Foundry Forge Plant of H.E.G. Ltd. Ranehi. It is alleged that though the Bihar Government issued a notification dated February 13, 1989 to the effect that 'occupier' of the Foundry Forge Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plant') should employ 5 qualified Safety Officers and even this Court by its order dated February 23, 1995 passed in CWCJ No. 8387/1994 (R) directed the Chief Inspector of Factories to take steps for appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Sachida Nand Prasad Vs. Smt. Savitri Sahay
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This Civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-7-1996 passed by the additional Munsif I, Bhagalpur, in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 15 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-landlord on the ground of personal necessity. 2. The defendant-petitioner is a tenant in respect of portion of the premises bearing holding No. 29A, police Line Road in Ward No. 10, situated at Bhagalpur Kutchery Road. The said premises henceforth shall be referred to as suit premises which consists of 3 rooms, one covered verandah cum room, inside verandah, kitchen, store, latrine with bath room and the court-yard in the ground floor of the premises. 3. The plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit for eviction stating inter alia that the defendant-petitioner is in occupation of the tenanted premises on a m...
Tag this Judgment!Dhani Majhi and anr. Vs. Ranga Majhi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1986 and 30.9.1986 respectively in Title Suit No. 51 of 1984 passed by the then 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for recovery of possession.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their father Bhuma Manjhi had a brother Batol Majhi @ Bajol Majhi, and this Batol Majhi had only one daughter namely Kandri Majhian who was married with Lusa Majhi, defendant No. 1 Kandri Majhian died leaving behind four sons who are defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and one married daughter Jhuri Majhian, defendant No. 6. The plaintiffs are the sons of Bhuma Majhi. According to the plaintiffs, the lands in Khata Nos. 4 and 5 of Mouza Pandugiti were the ancestral property of the father of the plaintiffs and their uncle Batol Majhi. The father of die plaintiffs became separate long before the last settlement of 1961 and...
Tag this Judgment!Employees in Relation to Industry Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. The Central Government referred the following dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for adjudication:- 'Whether the action of the management of Industry Colliery of Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in refusing employment to 111 workmen listed in the Annexure below was justified? If not, to what relief are the said workmen entitled? The Tribunal answered the said reference in favour of the workmen holding that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, being a successor- in-interest of the Industry Colliery as well as Bhuggatdih Colliery, has statutory obligation under Section 25H of the Act to re-employ 111 workmen and its refusal to do so was not justified. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the BCCL) is neither the employer of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »