Patna Court August 1999 Judgments

Surendra Nath Agrawal Vs. Toontoon Seth and anr.

Court: Patna

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Opposite party No. 1.2. The petitioner in this case is the informant of Bhabua P.S. Case No. 1 of 1997 instituted against one Bhanu Prasad and Toontoon Seth, O.P. No. 1, under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15-5-1998 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabua by which he has granted bail to O.P. No. 1 admittedly after his application for bail had been rejected by this Court on the ground that although charge-sheet was submitted against O.P. No. 1 on 24-4-1997 but congnizance was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua only on 30-4-1998 and hence, his remand during the aforesaid period was illegal in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1998(1) PLJR 782 (Sri S.K. Lal Spl. Judge, CBI (AHD), Patna v. Latu Prasad and Ors.).3. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the aforesaid judgm...

Jai Prakash Pardia Vs. Prabhu Lal Chowra

Court: Patna

Reported in: 1999(3)BLJR2421

1. Heard Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the O.P. inspite of service of notice.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-8-98 passed by the Court below under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, directing the defendant/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent since from the date of institution of the suit.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rent is due since July 1996 to May 1998, although suit was filed in 1997. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and also in view of the law settled by this Court, the Court below ought to have direct the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent since July 1996.4. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and impugned order dated 12-8-98 is modified to the extent that the defendant shall deposit all arrears of rent from July 1996 within 15 days from the next date fixed in the suit....

Satya Murmu Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

1. This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8-3-1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 1054 of 1999, whereby he allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 4 herein, and directed the respondent to make a fresh settlement in accordance with the directions contained in the order, while setting aside the settlement made in favour of the appellant herein.The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is about the manner in which the settlement of sand Ghats is to made under the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1972, since a special procedure has been prescribed for settlement of such sand Ghats.2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed. The appellant herein, who was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, claims to be the Secretary of a Co-operative Society, known as Karmoi Labour Co-operative Society Limited. His case was that by application dated 8-11-1998 he had applied for settlement of the sand Ghats in qu...

Shatrughana Lal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.M. Prasad, J.1. The facts of the case clearly show that the Executive Engineer. Irrigation Division, Raghopur, Supaul has acted in a most callous manner and in utter defiance of the general direction of this Court given in the case of Mosst. Rukmini Devi v. The State of Bihar reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 348, pursuant to which the petitioner approached him for final payment of his pensionary benefits.2. However, the matter came up to this Court earlier in M.J.C, No. 1844 of 1996 and it appears that this Court taking lenient view of the entire matter dropped the proceeding with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter by filing writ petition or approaching the appropriate forum. Admittedly, till then the petitioner was not paid full amount of gratuity, interim relief of Rs. 400/- and interim arrear of Rs. 208/-. Despite this, the Executive Engineer did not bother to comply with the general direction of this Court by taking steps and/ or issuing necessary sanction order for pay...

Bombay Motor Stores Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 5th November, 97 passed by the respondent No. 3, communicated through General Officer Commanding, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner has been informed that the dealings by the Army Command with the petitioner-Firm has been stopped pursuant to the order passed by the Headquarters by letter dated 21-10-97.2. Petitioner's case, inter alia, is that the petitioner-firm was registered by Army Command for supply of motor parts and equipment to the various units under the Army Command since 1960 and petitioner shifted his business from civil supply to Army supply and the petitioner-firm thereafter has been dealing with the Army supply since 1960 and onwards and the petitioner happens to be a registered contractor of the Army since then. It is stated that in course of time, besides the petitioner other firms have also been registered as Army contractors and all the firms u...

Chandra Shekhar Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

N. Pandey, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for appropriate writ/ order to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, dated 30-8-1991 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1991-92 whereby and whereunder, the further proceeding in Settlement Case No. 26 of 1985-86 was stayed.2. It appears a ceiling case was initiated against Annapurna Devi and ultimately at the stage of final publication certain lands were declared surplus. Petitioners having learnt about the final publication and since no opportunity was given to them by the authority, filed C.W.J.C. No. 1316 of 1984, which was disposed of on 9-3-1984 directing the authorities to consider the objection of the petitioners filed under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, in short 'Ceiling Act'. The authorities were directed to decide whether petitioners were the real land-holders as claimed? Since by the time, the petitioners could file objection under S...

M.K. Refractories, Kalimati Dist. Dhanbad Vs. Bihar State Electricity ...

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application thepetitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to grant the benifits of clause 9.6 of the Industrial Policy, 1995 by giving exemption from payment of minimum guarantee charges if the contracted load is upto 500 KVA and for a direction for refund of the entire amount of minimum guarantee charges illegally realised by the respondent-Board from the petitioner. 2. Petitioner's case is that it is a proprietorship firm and the proprietor of the firm set up an industry in the terms of the Industrial policy, 1995 for manufacturing refractories products and for the said purpose the petitioner has taken electric connection of contract load of 50 H.P. and started production from 5-7-97. It is alleged that in spite of the provisions in the Industrial Policy, 1995, the respondent-Board is not extending the benefits of the Industrial Policy by granting exemption from payment of in terras of Section 78A of the Elect...

Pramod Kumar Ambashtha Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 1999(47)BLJR1787; (2000)ILLJ523Pat

1. In the month of August, 1980, the petitioner was appointed a Cashier-cum-Clerk in Allahabad Bank (hereinafter called the said Bank) in its Bhagalpur University Branch. Thereafter on the basis of certain allegations a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The charges on the basis of which the proceeding was initiated against him are set out below :--"(1) On April 21, 1989, a fake joint S/B A/C No. 135/43 in the joint name of Gangadhar Prasad and Ram Prasad Sao was opened and introduced by Sri S. P Verma, another S/B A/C holder maintained at the branch. You have arranged for introducing in the aforesaid account by the said Shri Verma knowing fully well that the account so opened was a fictitious one as the signature of Sri Ram Prasad Sao appearing on the account opening form April 21, 1989 depicts close similarity with your writing style.(ii) You have fraudulently arranged to transfer an amount of Rs. 17,400/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred only) from the S/B A/C...

Gulabo Devi @ Gulabi Debi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.M. Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the widow of late Shiv Parasan Bhagat who died on 6-4-1998 while in the service of the State Government, is aggrieved by the order, contained in letter No. 2318 dated 12-9-1998 (Annexure-7) issued by the Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara, whereby and whereunder the Executive Engineer informed the petitioner that her deceased-husband had made nomination in favour of his nephews for payment of 50 % of the gratuity amount. As such, if she gives consent, the same shall be paid to them or she may produce the necessary succession certificate for disbursement of the said amount in her favour.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Executive Engineer. In paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit it, is stated that the deceased-Government servant had submitted nomination in favour of Satrughna Prasad Bhagat and Mahendra Prasad Bhagat, both nephews, to get 25% each of the gratuity amount and fo...

DulhIn Sundarpati Devi Vs. Ram Surat Koeri and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Both the Misc. Appeal and the Civil Revision have been filed against the judgment dated the 26th of May, 1984, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhabhua, in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1980, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents Ram Surat Koeri and others against the order dated 30-1-1980. passed by the Munsif, Bhabhua, in Misc. Case No. 106 of 1974 by which the Munsif had allowed the claim of the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. Both the cases were admitted. Civil Revision was placed for hearing before a learned single Judge and he, by order dated 18-11-1987 referred the matter to a Division Bench. Misc, Appeal was also ordered to be heard along with the said Civil Revision and, accordingly, both the matters were placed before a Division Bench and the Division Bench heard the matter and by order dated 11-9-1995 referred the matter before a Full Bench for a decision on the following Issue ...