Patna Court December 2001 Judgments
Mannu Yadav and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
I.P. Singh, J.1.The appellant No. 2, Umakant Yadav has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellant No. 1, Mannu Yadav has been convicted under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellant No. 1 Mannu Yadav was further convicted under Section 341 ofthe Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was passed against this section.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 19-5-1981, informant Jai Mandan Yadav went to take bath at the Government well. The well was dirty and the appellant Mannu Yadav and his son Umakant Yadav were also on the well at that time. The informant told both the appellants that the well was situated near their (Appellants) house and why did they keep the well dirty. Thereafter, there was altercation between the informant and the appellants. In the meantime, it has been alleged that the appellant Mannu Yadav caught hold of the info...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Chand JaIn and anr. Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and or ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions with respect to take over and disposal of the same industrial unit in terms of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the two have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. CWJC No. 10218 of 1999 has been preferred by one of the intending purchasers whose offer has not been accepted by the Bihar State Financial Corporation who are Respondent No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter compendiously referred to as 'the Corporation') and instead the offer of Respondent No. 4 (Smt. Sharda Devi) to take over the unit has been accepted. Respondent No. 5 (Smt. Rekha Jain) is the petitioner in the analogous CWJC No. 11262 of 1999, and is a partner of the partnership firm which owns the unit. The partnership firm is the loanee and has been doing business in the name of M/s Kumar Steel Works. The case of Rekha Jain is that her right to retain the property on...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Madhuban Virat Pashu Mela Akorhi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
S.K. Katriar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18-7-2001 (Annexure-1), passed by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent No. 3), in Appeal Petition No. 2 of 2000, under Section 129(V) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appeal was directed against the order dated 21 -9-2000 (Annexure-28), passed by the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mohania (respondent No. 12), whereby the application of respondent No. 15 (Vijay Sen Singh) to hold a cattle fair known as Vijay Virat Pashu Mela on his Raiyati land for the period 2000-2001 was rejected.2. Respondent No. 15 was earlier granted licence for holding Mela for sale and purchase of cattle since 1-10-1996 on his Raiyati land bearing plot Nos. 323 & 324, Khata No. 173. Respondent No. 15 was grantedlicence to hold the Mela for three days a week namely, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, apart from six occasi...
Tag this Judgment!Gita Devi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
P.K. Deb, J.1. The petitioner's husband dies in harness while in service and as such, the petitioner was entitled to get family pension but regarding fixation of family pension, it appears that Annexure-1 has been written by the A.G. to the effect that during the service period of the husband of the petitioner, he had been given bime-bound promotion without passing the accounts examination. Regarding the position being taken by the State Government towards passing and non-passing of the accounts examination dependent on the time, bound promotion much water has been flown by the time. Ultimately, the Full Bench has held that as the executive order of the State Government has got validity to supplement the Rule but still laxity has been given to the period for which the Executive Order was not in force and in those period if any promotion is given the same is valid in the eye of law. There is some confusion in the present case from the letter Annexure-1 as is revealed. It appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Medical Hall and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
C.K. Prasad, J. 1. In all these writ applications, common question of law and fact arise and as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Facts He in a very narrow compass. Petitioners excepting petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11557 of2001 (Ramji Lal Sagarmal v. State of Bihar and others), filed applications for grant of licence to sell drugs as provided under Rule 59(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11557 of 2001, however, filed application for renewal of the licence under the said Rule. Applications were filed in the prescribed form before the Regional Licensing Authority, i.e. the authority competent to grant licence. The State Government, by is s communication dated 3-4-2001 addressed to all the Regional Licensing Authorities, has informed them not to issue any licence for wholesale and retail sale of the drugs, in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the State Government Regional Licensing Authority Informed the petitioners that ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Jee Prasad and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Ashok Kumar Verma, J.1. Both these Misc. Appeals arise out of the same order dated 26-5-1994, passed by the Additional District Judge II, Bettiah in Insolvency Case No. 2 of 1970 where by the learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the petitions of the appellants for clarification of the order dated 12-3-1992 in respect of the land in the case and to release the properties from the insolvency case. Therefore, both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants Chhedi Lal Sikaria and Govind Kumar @ Govind Kumar Sikaria of Misc. Appeal No. 272 of 1994 had filed petition praying therein to clarity the order dated 12-3-1992 in respect of the land in the case and to direct the Receiver not to interfere with the title and possession of the petitioners over the land. According to them, on 12-3-1992, the Receiver was directed to realise the property of the insolvent and the holding in which the Receiver had put his lock had been locked by the tenant of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Yadav Vs. the State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner, contender to the office of the Up-Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat of Budhwaran, being aggrieved by the order dated 13-6-2001 recorded in present of the rival candidate, the Mukhiya and the Returning Officer, has come to this Court inter alia pleading that in view of the declaration of result relating to the votes secured by the candidate, condemned Returning Officer conducting election no authority to stay the result and was obliged to declare the result then and there. It is further contended that during pendency of this petitioner, contrary to the provisions of law the Returning Officer allowed the Mukhiya to cast his vote, creating a situation of equality and further allowed the Mukhiya to cast his casting vote in favour of the other respondent namely, Mumtaz Khan.2. Placing reliance upon Section 15(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after elections, every Gram Panchayat in its first meeting ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Managing Director of the Housing Board is also present. The present petition presents a very pathetic condition of the working of the Housing Board. I am sorry to record that the manner in which the Housing Board and its Officers are working, cannot be said to be satisfactory rather their acts and action have to be condemned. In the present matter, the petitioner after being persuaded by the advertisement issued by the Housing Board paid his hard earned money to the Housing Board with a pious hope that he would be given a plot in consideration of his money. A period of long 30 years has passed but the Housing Board is not ready to come out of its slumber. When this Court issued notice to the respondents, the Court sincerely hoped that the Housing Board would come out with a straight case and make feasible proper and honest officer. Instead of making such an offer the Housing Board is trying to persuade this Court by pro...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Construction Company Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel No.2 This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, commanding the respondent authorities to execute the final agreement with the petitioner for collection of toll tax of Mahatma Gandhi Setu for a period of one year, 2001 inter alia, for the reason that he is the highest bidder.2. The State Government has levied toll tax on the vehicles using the bridge connecting the township of Patna with that of Hajipur spanning the river Ganga, to aross from one side to the other. The State Government has had the option of collecting he same either departmentally or by making a settlement in favour of a private agency for the purpose. So far as the present period, namely 2001-2002 is concerned, he State Government published an advertisement which appeared in a daily newspaper Aj' on 24-6-2001, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
P.K. Deb, J.1. This petition has been filed for grant of disability pension to the husband of the petitioner Ram Naresh Singh who was in the Air-Force Service and has been discharged on disability ground oh 14-2-1990. Disability was admitted to be 50% on Non-organic Phychosis. All other benefits have been made available to the petitioner's husband but the disability pension had not been granted as objection had been raised from the side of the Controller of Defence Accounts, Allahabad by referring to Regulation 153 of the Pension Regulations of Air-Force, 1961 (Part-I) which runs as follows:Unless otherwise is specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalidated from the service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Air-Force Service and is assessed at 20% or over. 2. Such sort of provisions are there regarding disability pension for Military personnel also. Those matters were taken up by the Apex Court in very ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »