Patna Court October 2003 Judgments
Hiralal Chauhan Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
1. This writ petition arises from a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The purchaser of the disputed land is the petitioner. Me succeeded before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, who rejected the claim of pre-emption put forward on behalf of respondent No. 5 Chitari Jamadar, but lost before the appellate and the revisional authorities, namely, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The aforesaid orders are contained, respectively, in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition.2. The dispute relates to 0.07 acre land of plot No. 94 situate at village Jalalgarh in the district of Purnea. On 23-9-86 the petitioner purchased the said land from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Molai Chauhan and Munri Devi, under a registered sale deed. Respondent No. 5 Chitari Jamadar (hereinafter referred to as pre-emptor) filed application under Section 16(3) of the Act being Case ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalan Ravidas Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
B.N.P. Singh, J.1. Successive dacoities were committed in a number of houses including that of Mahendra Yadav when miscreants who were 8-10 in number, having scaled over the tiled roof of the house of Mahendra Yadav, jumped in the courtyard, gained access in the inner apartmentof the house, scuffled with house inmates and haying shot dead Ram Pravesh Yadav removed house belongings which includes wearing apparels, ornaments and cash, and decamped with the booty.2. It was Mahendra Yadav who took recourse to public authority and set the Police in motion. After statement of Mahendra Yadav was recorded. Police came in action, and investigation followed, in course of which, Police collected evidence, visited different places of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead body of Ram Pravesh Yadav and recorded statement of witnesses. During courses of investigation, houses of Sudhir Kahar and appellant were searched when some articles alleged to be part of booty were, seized by one Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Amanullah Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
S.N. Jha, J.1. This writ petition on behalf of sole petitioner is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur dated 3-4-2003 by which a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him and he has been repatriated to his parent organisation, namely, Bihar Finished Leathers Limited. It may straightaway be stated that validity of the departmental proceeding is not under challenge in this writ petition, the petitioner is only aggrieved by the repatriation part of the order.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Accounts Assistant in the Bihar Finished Leathers Limited, a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, in 1979. In 1990 the financial-condition of the company deteriorated so much so that it was not in a position to even pay salary to its employees. Like this company, many Boards and Corporations of the State too had become sick. The State Government came out with a scheme for rehabilitation of the employees of such Boa...
Tag this Judgment!Grand Prix Arms Stores Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18th of June, 1999 (Annexure-10) passed by the State Government whereby the arms licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 20-11 -2000 (Annexure-11) whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit all arms and ammunition to another licensee.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner had arms licence in Form XI for repair, test other than proof test, sale or transfer etc. for arms of non-prohibited bore and prohibited bore viz. rifle, revolver, pistol, B.L./ML gun. Later on it came to the notice that the authority to grant licence for prohibited bore arms of and ammunition is the Central Government and the same was incorporated in the licence of the petitioner by manipulation. Accordingly a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why its licence be not cancelled. Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Guddu Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
S.N. Jha, J.1. The sole appellant of this appeal has been convicted under Sections 302 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 302 he has been awarded imprisonment for life. For the offence under Section 354, two years' rigorous imprisonment has been awarded.2. The cases of the prosecution is that Kauleshwar Mahto a resident of village Parauli Takhat Tola within Basantpur Police Station of Siwan district, his son Baliram Mahto and daughter Munni Kumari were carrying bundles of wheat from the field to their house on 13-5-1998. At about 6.45 p.m. while proceeding to the field for carrying another bundle, Kauleshwar heard Munni Kumari shouting for held. She was 2-2.1/2 Bigha ahead of her father. Kauleshwar Mahto ran towards her. He saw the appellant entering in the adjacent Kaharahi field. Munni Kumari was lying on the ground with knife injuries all over the body. She was smeared with blood and dead. He brought her dead body to his house. Kauleshwar alleged that t...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Larley Vs. John @ Johny C.A.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
S.N. Jha, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 20 read with Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act' for short). Section 20 as it stood prior to the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001) provided that every decree or nullity of marriage made by District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court, and the provisions of Section 17, Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), shall mutatis mutandis apply to such decrees. I shall refer to Section 17 of the Act a little later in this judgment. The petitioner instituted suit being Matrimonial Case No. 38 of 1996 in the Court of District. Judge, Bhagalpur for decree of nullity of marriage with respondent on the ground that the respondent was an idiot at the time of marriage. The Second Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur to whom the ease was transferred, accepting the petitioner's case granted her decree of nullity of marriage subject to confirmation by the High Court under Section 20 of the Act. That is how...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Larley Vs. Mr. John @ Jony C.A.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
S.N. Jha, J.1. This is a reference under Section 20 read with Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, ('the Act' for short). Section 20 as it stood prior to the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001) provided that every decree of nullity of marriage made by District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court, and the provisions of Section 17, Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), shall mutatis mutandis apply to such decrees. I shall refer to Section 17 of the Act a little later in this judgment. The petitioner instituted suit being Matrimonial Case No. 38 of 1996 in the Court of District Judge, Bhagalpur for decree of nullity of marriage with respondent on the ground that the respondent was an idiot at the time of marriage. The Second Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur to whom the case was transferred, accepting the petitioner's case granted her decree of nullity of marriage subject to confirmation by the High Court under Section 20 of the Act. That is how ...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Devi @ Manju Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). It is directed against the order dated 2.7.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Tr. No. 1099/2001wherein and whereunder the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 239 of the Code.2. It appears that opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint petition against the present petitioners which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code. It was registered as Mirganj P.S. Case No. 173 of 1999. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet. The cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 498, 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the case was posted for framing of charge in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.3. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›