Patna Court February 2001 Judgments
Satyendra Nath Nandan, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. Etc. Etc.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. As in ail these writ petitions, the question involved is common, with consent of parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Admittedly, all the petitioners of the above-mentioned writ petitions superannuated from service before the appointed day under Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 while they were working in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar. Their retirement is in between 1991 and June, 2000. Some of the petitioners are getting provisional pension only and some have been kept denied even of provisional pension till date. Accordingly, they have filed the present writ application seeking appropriate direction to the Respondents to pay their dues including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc.3. The stand of the State of Bihar and its officials in the counter-affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 11379 of 2000 initially was that the liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Roza HussaIn Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Heard the teamed counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the facts leading to the decision of the case on the point of taw arc only required to be dealt with without going into other controversial factual position. 3. In order to settle 19 Sand Ghat at a time, a tender notice was published, which is Annexure -1, by the Collector, Bhojpur. Three dates for -holding auction were mentioned as 15-12-2000, 22-12-2000, and 29-12-2000 indicating therein that if for any reason the auction could not be held on 15-12-2000, the same would be held on the next date. Similarly, if even on the next date auction is not held, the same would be held on 29-12-2000. Time was also mentioned as 11 a.m. Some conditions have been laid down in the auction notice itself, which were required to be fulfilled by the prospective tenderers. There is no dispute that ...
Tag this Judgment!Biku Yadav and ors. Vs. Champa Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 9th July, 1993 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Purnea in Title Appeal No. 48 of 1989.2. The relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants had allegedly purchased certain lands from one Ramphal Yadav. However, one Bhutari Devi, wife of Ramphal Yadav filed Title Suit No. 611 of 1967 against the plaintiff-appellants and others and obtained an ex parte decree. No notice was served in that title suit. When the judgment was passed in this suit on 11th June, 1970, the plaintiff-appellants filed Title Suit No. 1072 of 1970, praying that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 611 of 1967 be declared as fraudulent, illegal and void. During the pendency of this Title Suit, Bhutari died and the plaintiff-appellants did not know that Bhutari Devi had left behind any heir. So her name was sought to be expunged from the cause title of the plaint and it was accordingly expunged...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Devi Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Shashank Kr. Singh, J.1. The present application has been preferred for review of order and judgment dated 26-8-1998 passed in L.P.A. No. 749 of 1998 affirming the order of the writ Court dated 17th April, 1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 1217 of 1996 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.2. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the writ Court while dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 1217 of 1996 failed to consider the fact that the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the inquiry report without serving a copy of the same on the petitioner and had differed with the Inquiring Officer and come to his own findings holding the petitioner guilty on those charges also, behind the back of the petitioner. As such, there was violation of the principles of natural justice as the disciplinary authority had passed the order behind the back of the petitioner.3. From the order passed in L.P.A. No. 749 of 1998, dated 26-8-1998 review of which order has been sough...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Chand Mehta and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Indu Prabha Singh, J.1. All the five appellants have been convicted under Sections 304A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under both counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the sister of the first informant, Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 9), aged about 20 years was married with appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta, two years prior to the date of institution of the case. It has been alleged that on the occasion of the marriage he had given a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and other golden and silver ornaments to the appellant-Gulab Chand Mehta but he had demanded a Rajdoot motor cycle at the time of marriage. It has been further alleged that appellant-Gulab Chand Mehta demanded the motor cycle on being persuaded by the other appellants. The father of the first informant had agreed to give the motor cycle to the appellant but due to some inability the demand of motor cycle made ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner held a retail licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Order), 1984 and a dealership under the Public Distribution System. He was made an accused in a criminal case in which allegations were that he committed irregularities in distribution of the foodgrains allotted to him. The trial ended in his acquittal. Nevertheless, the licensing authority cancelled his licence issued under the unification order. In appeal, the order passed by the licensing authority was affirmed.2. Mr. Griyaghey, learned Counsel for the petitioner-submitted that under Clause 11(1) of the Unification order, a licence could be cancelled only in case of conviction in a criminal case and therefore, the order passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority, cancelling his licence though he was acquitted in the criminal trial were illegal and unsustainable in law.3. The submission made by Mr. Griyaghey is well founded so far as retail licence of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Rambali Raut and ors. Vs. Most. Bachia and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 11th April, 1990, passed in Misc. Case No. 15 of 1988, by Sri B.K. Singh, District Judge, Motihari. There was an appeal before the lower Court (47 of 1983), which was dismissed in default on 22nd March, 1988 in default of payment of Court fee. Subsequently, there was an application for restoration under Order LXI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this application was heard in Misc. Case No. 15 of 1988 which was dismissed on 11th April, 1990 and against that order, the present Misc. Appeal has been filed before this Court.2. The case of the applicant-appellant is that Rambali Raut was ill from 15th March, 1988 to 13th April, 1988 and, hence, he could not deposit the Court-fee. So he claimed restoration of the appeal. The learned District Judge held that two witnesses were examined on behalf of applicant and the certificate of the Doctor was also exhibited but since the Medical Officer himself was ...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred against the order dated 18-2-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3693 of 1998 (Madan Mohan Prasad v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), whereby the order bearing memo No. 352, dated 12-3-1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), has been set aside. By this order, the appellant-Board sought to recover a sum of Rs. 40, 183.60p. from respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) on account of excess pay drawn by him due to wrong fixation of pay while he was in service.2. Respondent No. 1 had initially joined the appellant's service as a Bill Clerk, was promoted to the higher post of Assistant Accountant, and finally retired as Accountant with effect from 31-7-1997 after reaching the age of sixty years.Respondent No. 1 had submitted representation dated 31-1-1984 (Annexure-2) to the appellant stating therein that one Jagdish Prasad, Upper Division Assistant Accountant, was junior to...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Deo Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
1. By this writ petition, petitioner, who is a member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17-3-2000 communicated by the Registrar-General of this Court vide Memo No. 6130 (Annexure-1) while he was posted as District and Sessions Judge, Nawada informing him that pursuant to the judgment and orders of the Supreme Court dated 24-8-1993 passed in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 (Writ Petition No. 1022 of 1989-All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. the Court having assessed and evaluated his services, have been pleased not to allow him the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years, and that in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, he was ceased to be the member of the Judicial Service of the State on completion of the age of 58 years.2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was born on 15-9-1942 and joined the Bihar Judicial Service on 4-4-1974 as Munsif. He was prompted as ...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Prasad Verma Vs. Union of India
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
This petition has been filed to quash the notice dated 27-3-2000, Annexure 2, to the writ petition. The notice has been served on the bank where the petitioner has an account. The notice is under section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In addition, the petitioner has also received a notice under section 158BD of the Act.2. The law provides that whatever action the Income Tax Department may take, it must be taken within the time stipulated under the provisions according to which the present action has been taken. There already has been search of the petitioner's premises. The court cannot hold making an observation that it did inquire from the counsel for the petitioner as to who exactly was the other joint holder in an account which has been referred as number 16565 in reference to Annexure 2(b) to the writ petition. The court did not receive an answer. At this stage, the court is not drawing any conclusions.3. All things considered, the notice...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »