Patna Court March 2001 Judgments

Bihar School Examination Board and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR2001Pat166

1. This petition was filed in 1997, in effect, challenging the decision of the District Forum , Begusarai (under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in case No. 57 of 1995; Shashi Kumar v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.2. The facts as are borne out from the very first paragraph of the order of the District Consumer Forum, which has been impugned , is that as the mark sheet of the Mathematics Paper II after re-evaluation not having been supplied, the applicant Shashi Kumar filed an application before the District Consumer Forum for compensation for Rs. 10,000/-. It was his contention that the marks in Mathematics Paper II were beyond his expectation. Thus, he applied for re-evaluation and also deposited the requisite fee of Rs 25/- against receipt No. 301362 dated 10 Sept., 1993. It is asserted that the opposite party did not re-evaluate the Mathematics Paper II so that he had to send a reminder and even then he did not receive the r...

State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Basudeo Sinha

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai and S.K. Katriar, JJ.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred with respect to the order dated 11-11-1999, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 2883 of 1999, {Basudeo Sinha v. State of Bihar), whereby the writ has been allowed and the impugned order dated 17-5-1995 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) has been set aside wherein 10% of the writ petitioner's pension has been sought to be deducted in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was an Engineer in the service of the Bihar Government. A proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was initiated against him on 31-7-1992, while he was functioning as such. He was superannuated with effect from 31-7-1992. He then moved this Court by prefer...

Ambika Prasad and ors. Vs. Chun Chun Yadav and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate Court passed by Sri Abhay Shankar Prasad, Sub-Judge, Bhagalpur, in T.A. No. 37 of 1981. The aforesaid appeal was filed against the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 111 of 1975. Both the lower Courts (trial Court and the appellate Court) dismissed the plaintiff-appellants' suit, and hence, this second appeal.2. Earlier, there was a money suit No. 23 of 1967 which was filed by respondent No. 1 of the title appeal No. 37 of 1981 and respondent No. 2 of the aforesaid appeal along with some other appellants were defendants in the money suit. In that money suit, a decree was passed and in the execution of the money decree, plot No. 711 having an area of 0.74 decimals, plot No. 718 having an area of 0.49 decimals and plot No. 708 of Khata No. 61 were auction-sold. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 of the aforesaid appeal and the appellants before this Court filed Title Suit No. 111 of 1975, seeking annul...

Nitishwar Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the point of limitation as well as on merit. 2. Having regard to the facts stated in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2000 passed in CWJC No.3729 of 1998 by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant. Secretary of Nitishwar Bhartiya Chikitsha Vigyan Sansthan, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institution), to grant permanent recognition to the institution on the basis of the inquiry report submitted for the said purpose and to allow the students of first year of BAMS examination 1994-95 to 1996-97 to appear in the said examination scheduled to be held on 2-2-1999. Three students of the said institution of the Sessions 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 also filed ...

Nitishwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of limitation as well as on merit.2. Having regard to the facts stated in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.3. This appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against he judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3729 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant, Secretary of Nitishwar Bhartiya Chikitsa Vigyan Sansthan, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institution'), to grant permanent recognition to the Institution on the basis of the inquiry report submitted for the said purpose and to allow the students of first year of BAMS examination 1994-95 to 1996-97 to appear in the said examination scheduled to be held on 2-2-1999. Three students of the said institution of the Sessions 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 also filed wri...

Ramesh Kumar Bhalotia Vs. Lalti Kumar Bhalotia and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner against the order dated 8-6-2000 passed by Munsif Jamui in Title Suit No. 49 of 1998 rejecting his objection regarding the maintainability of the suit.2. The plaintiff-opposite party on 19-4-1996 filed Administrative Suit No. 24 of 1996 claiming that they and the defendant-petitioner are own brothers and they deal in kerosene oil business in the name and style of M/s National Agencies at jamui. The kerosene oil business was a joint family business and looked after by his father as a Karta and after his death, the defendant-petitioner was looking after the same. In 1989, a partnership deed was created between them which was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Later on, the defendant-petitioner started acting dishonestly and accordingly, the said suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant being partners of M/s National Agencies are entitled to 1/3rd share each in profits and loss and defendant ...

Ramesh Kumar Bhalotia Vs. Lalit Kumar Bhalotia and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Raj, J. 1. The defendant is the petitioner against the order dated 8-6-2000 passed by Munsif, Jamui in Title Suit No. 49 of 1998 rejecting his objection regarding the maintainability of the suit. 2. The plaintiffs opposite party on 19-4-1996 filed Administrative Suit No. 24 of 1996 claiming that they and the defendant petitioner are own brothers and they deal in Kerosene oil business in the name and style of M/s. National Agencies at Jamui. The Kerosene oil business was a Joint family business and looked after by his father as a karta and after his death, the defendant petitioner was looking after the same. In 1989, a partnership deed was created between them which was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Later on the defendant - petitioner started acting dishonestly and accordingly the said suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant being partners of M/s. National Agencies are entitled to 1/3rd share each in profits and loss and defe...

Jag Mohan Mehrotra and anr. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. a ...

Court: Patna

1. Both the Letters Patent Appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 20-4-2000 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1479 of 1999. In view of the nature of the case, both the appeals have been heard together in detail at the stage of admission itself and are being disposed of by this common order.2. LPA No. 914 of 2000 has been preferred by the writ petitioners against that part of the judgment under appeal by which prayer for a direction to the respondents which include Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), a Government company, to vacate the premises in question has been refused. This was sought as a consequential relief after the main relief for quashing of letter dated 28-12-1998 (Annexure-5) issued by the Corporation in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section 7(3) of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was allowed by the learned Single Judge. LPA No. 93...

Jag Mohan Mehrotra and anr. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. a ...

Court: Patna

1. Both the Letters Patent appeals arise out of judgment and order dated April 20, 2000, by a learned single judge of this court in CWJC No. 1479 of 1999 (since reported in Jag Mohan Mehrotra v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 109 Comp Cas 844). In view of the nature of the case, both the appeals have been heard together in detail at the stage of admission itself and are being disposed of by this common order.2. LPA No. 914 of 2000 has been preferred by the writ petitioners against that part of the judgment under appeal by which prayer for a direction to the respondents which include Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), a Government company, to vacate the premises in question has been refused. This was sought as a consequential relief after the main relief of quashing of letter dated December 28, 1998, (annexure 5) issued by the Corporation in terms of Section 5(2) read with Section 7(3) of the ESSO (Acquisition of Underta...

State of Bihar Vs. Braj Nandan Raut

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30th October, 2000 passed by the Vacation/Sessions Judge, Gaya in A.B.P. No. 581/2000 arising out of Magadh University P. S. Case No. 64/2000.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Vacation/Sessions Judge, Gaya had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 581/2000 as the case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Learned counsel further submitted that the Vacation/Sessions Judge, Gaya was not the Special Judge within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the anticipatory bail application was only maintainable before the Special Judge, South Bihar, Patna who was notified as Sp...