Patna Court November 2004 Judgments
Gajendra Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner who was holding the office of Pramukh of Supaul Panchayat Samiti is before this Court with the submission that contrary to provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 instead of serving a notice of no confidence upon the Pramukh it was produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who forwarded the same to the Block Development Officer and the Block Development Officer in his turn opened the file and thereafter the same was brought before the Pramukh. The petitioner says that if the notice is not served upon the Pramukh in accordance with law that is Sub-section (3) of Section 44 no meeting can be conducted to consider the said motion of no confidence. In support of his submission the petitioner has filed the copy of the motion of no confidence to show and say that the notice in fact was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent No. 6 in his counter affidavit and t...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. On the last date it was submitted before the Court that the matter is not proceeding before the Labour Court and the petitioners who are terminated employees are suffering a great hardship. This Court called for a report from the concerned Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Industrial. Tribunal, Patna, has sent the report. According to him, office of the Labour Court is vacant but since after passing of the impugned order on 16.6.2003, the present petitioners made an application before the Labour Court that they want to file a writ petition in the High Court and thereafter they went on making prayers for adjournments of the case enabling them to file the stay order from the High Court. When these facts were brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submitted that the petitioners never prayed for time to produce the stay order but in fact they prayed for time on the ground that the matter is pendi...
Tag this Judgment!Wali Ahmed and ors. Vs. L.N. Mithila University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Ahsanuddin Amanullah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the National Council for Teachers Education and Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the L. N. Mithila University.2. Petitioners have assailed the order dated 31-3-2000, passed by the Regional Director of the National Council for the Teachers Education, Annexure-10, where-under the council has withdrawn the provisional recognition granted to the petitioner-institution, vide order dated 23/24-2-1999, as according to the Regional Director, the said provisional recognition was obtained fraudulently and through mis-representation.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the impugned order, submitted that the same was passed without giving him any opportunity of being heard or making any representation as is required under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 which empowers the National Council for the Teachers Education...
Tag this Judgment!SudIn Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in the capacity of headmaster of Middle School, Belsandi in the District of Samastipur has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing upon the respondents to take over the school in terms of Section 3(4) of Bihar Non-Government Elementary School (Taking Over Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act').3. Precisely, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this school was established in the year 1961 by the villagers and thereafter necessary permissions were granted by the authorities of the Department to run the school up to Seventh Class. The school thereafter was inspected on several occasions and the Area Education Officer, Rossera made a spot inspection on 9.1.1989 and he submitted his inquiry report to respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure-11, recommending the case of the petitioner for its take over, but till date the State authorities have neither acc...
Tag this Judgment!Bicky Kumar Mahton and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2004
C.M. Prasad, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment dated 17th July, 2001 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai passed in S.T. No. 191 of 2000/ 23 of 2001, whereby each of the three appellants has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also a fine of Rs. 7,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. Each of the appellants has also been convicted under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Each of the appellants has also been convicted under Section 120B read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed under these counts.2. The informant Shankar Sah (PW 6) gave a written petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This application is directed against the order of dismissal, as contained in Annexure-8, and the order, as contained in Annexure-10, whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the delinquent against the order of dismissal has been rejected.3. It appears that for the incident dated 8.7.1997, where the husband of the petitioner, namely, Binod Kumar Singh, had entered into the house of one Ramashraya Yadav in the night hours in a drunken position and had caught hold of hands of wife of Ramashraya Yadav, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In Departmental Proceeding No. 12 of 1997 the inquiry proceeded, where Ramashraya Yadav was examined, but the husband of the petitioner, however, refused to cross-examine him. The inquiry officer also recorded evidence of other witnesses in support of the allegation against the husband of the petitioner. Inquiry report was submitted holding that charges have been found to be proved against ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Verma
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
R.N. Prasad, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of limitation, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.2. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.7.2003 passed by the District Judge, Bettiah in Title Appeal No. 4 of 2003, whereby the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed title suit No. 111 of 1998 before the Munsif court, Bettiah for declaration that the notification No. 460(3) dated 30-5-1998, the order of voluntary retirement, is illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction and cannot be implemented by the defendants-petitioners against her.4. The suit was decreed on 25.9.2001. The petitioners preferred title Appeal No. 4 of 2003 against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif. They also filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by the impugned order on the ground of limitation holding that no suf...
Tag this Judgment!imran Khan Vs. Dr. Kamal Ashraf
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. This complaint has been filed with a prayer for directing the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 only to the complainant by way of medical reimbursement and compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant due to medical and professional negligence of the O.P. 2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a businessman having his business in the name and style of AL-Tabinda Enterprises, Bombay. He along with his brother is original inhabitant of Aurangabad, Bihar. The complainant with his family was in Patna on 8.7.1999. He felt pain in his abdomen and consulted O.P.-Dr. Kamal Ashraf, Senior Surgeon of Patna who runs his clinic at S.P. Verma Road, Patna. The doctor prescribed several tests and thereafter suggested to undergo an operation. Accordingly, he was operated in the clinic of O.P. for cholecystectomy and appendicectomy on 12.7.1999 and paid Rs. 10,000 besides other necessary expenditure on medicine, etc. It is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Kant Jha and anr. Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Pandey
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. The Civil Revision is barred by limitation.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averment made in the limitation petition, I find that a good ground has been made out for condonation of delay in filing this revision. Accordingly, the delay in filing this revision is condoned and the limitation petition, thus, stands allowed.3. The defendant-petitioners have filed the present revision application under the proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 18 of 1998/3 of 2001, whereby the 4th Subordinate Judge, Patna, has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and on the expiry of the lease deed in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.4. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the property described in the plaint. It is also...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Devi Vs. Yadunandan Prasad
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner against the order dated 25.1.2002, passed by Munsif-I, Vaishali, in Title Suit No. 102 of 2000 holding that the suit was not maintainable in exercise of the power under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code').2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the present suit for a declaration that the decree passed in earlier Title Suit No. 57 of 1971 filed by the defendant-opposite party, was not binding upon her as the decree was obtained by fraud and she should not be dispossessed on the basis of the said decree.3. It is an admitted position that the defendant-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 57 of 1971 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Vaishali, for specific performance of contract on the basis of, an agreement dated 26.11.1969 executed by mother and brother of the plaintiff for sale of land. In the said suit, the plaintiff of the present suit was also made as a party and in which a decree was passe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »