Patna Court April 2004 Judgments
Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) Through Its Convenor Basant Kumar Chaudh ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. 1. India's claim that it is the world's largest democracy is not a statement which can be made with pride for all times to come. Unless some factors are checked, and immediately, this will become a hollow claim, because the contents of democracy are beginning to be eroded.2. This is election time, all over the nation. Reporting in both print and broadcast media reveal; how this democracy is functioning. The election in Bihar has come in for much comment. If there is any serious critic who may say that the atmosphere is principled and ideal and all the voters came to vote, then these proceedings must be dropped. But is this the case?3. The pulse of the people in a Democracy is the free press, and this election has been given a gruesome face by the Press. This Court has noted reports from the period, when the elections were announced. From then until today there has been brutality, violence and death. Death by violence seems a mundane exercise. The tragedy is only ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Mohan Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Certain persons had come to this Court in CWJC No. 10942 of 1998. The said writ application was allowed and the matter was taken in LPA No. 1283 of 1999 and simultaneously MJC No. 3864 of 2000 was also field in the said matter. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of LPA No. 1283 of 1999 and MJC No. 3864 of 2000 on 16th May, 2002. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to re-determine the merit list on the basis of the qualifying marks prescribed under the statutory rules were set aside. Thereafter nothing was done therefore, the petitioners came to this Court in CWJC No. 3222 of 2003. On 6.5.2003 the Bihar Public Service Commission declared the result in relation to twelve persons, therefore, on 19.5.2003, the present petitioner Ravindra Mohan withdrew his writ application CWJC No. 3222 of 2003. Even thereafter nothing has been done, therefore, the petitioner is again in this Court. His submission is that the present matter relates to ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Verma Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.1. This application is directed against the impugned order dated 15.12.2003 of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, passed in Special case No. 79 of 1992 whereby the petitioner's prayer for discharging him was dismissed and framing of charge against the petitioner was ordered.2. Initially first information No. 39 of 1992 dated 2.11.1992 was filed in this case and thereafter on completion of investigation charge-sheet No. 01 of 2000 dated 4.1.2000 for offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(e) read with 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was filed against the petitioner.3. The petitioner, during the relevant check period 1959 to 1979 was serving as a Divisional Manager in the State Ware Housing Corporation, Maurya Complex. The facts in brief as mentioned in the charge-sheet is that during the check period the petitioner received a total salary of Rs. 1,23,850/- and after deduction of necessary expenses in maintenanc...
Tag this Judgment!Susheela Devi and ors. Vs. Most. Sulehara Kunwar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 8.2.1988, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Siwan, in Title Appeal No. 132 of 1972 (Most. Sita Kuar and Ors. v. Indrawati Devi and Ors.), whereby he has set-aside the judgment and decree, dated 15.6.1972, passed by the learned 1st Munsif, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 81 of 1965 (Most. Fula Kuar and Ors. v. Bishwanath Pandey and Ors.). The Trial Court had decreed the suit which has been set aside by the impugned judgment. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. Most. Fula Kuar (since deceased), and Janardan Ojha respondent No. 2, filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1965, against Bishwanath Pandey (since deceased) and Most. Salehara Kuar (respondent No. 1) for adjudication that Most. Salehara Kuar had no right to execute the two sale-deeds, dated 10.03.1965 (Exts. A and A/1) in favour of Bishwan...
Tag this Judgment!Bhago Harijan and ors. Vs. Rajendra Mandal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.1. The plaintiffs/appellants/appellants had filed Title Suit No. 184/26 of 1976/1979 for declaration that the plaintiffs had got valid right, title and interest over the suit land and that the defendants had no manner of concern over the same also praying for other reliefs. The suit was decreed by the 6th Additional Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in favour of the defendants, the judgment and decree coming under scrutiny in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1980 preferred by the plaintiffs which was decided by the third Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur in which the appeal was dismissed.2. While admitting this second appeal following substantial questions of law were framed :--'(1) As to whether Ext. 5 which is Khatian of cadestral survey demolishes the case of the defendants as according to the defendants Hari Chamar is the son of Nemani Chamar whereas Ext. 5 shows that Hari Chamar is son of Shambhu Chamar.(2) As to whether the lower appellant Court has omitted to conside...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Yadav and anr. Vs. Jadunandan Prasad Yadav and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
P.K. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsels for both sides on I.A.No. 3833 of 2003, at flag-C, and I.A. No. 5708 of 2003, at flag-A.2. The application at flag-C is under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying therein for modifying the order dated 1.7.2003 by which this second appeal was admitted by formulating a substantial question of law. It has. been submitted that substantial question of law was formulated on placement of wrong facts about the judgments of the lower Courts. The suit was filed for declaration that three gift deeds executed on different dates in favour of Deep Naryan Yadav and two others as well Will dated 24.1.1978 said to have been executed by Shri Lal Yadav in favour of defendant No. 1, Bhola Yadav, all were forged, illegal, not operable and not binding on the plaintiffs. There was prayer for other reliefs also.3. From order dated 1.7.2003 it appears that it was observed that genuineness of Will could be decided only under special statute by a Court having s...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2001 of the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar, contained in Annexure-1/A, and the consequential order contained in Annexure 11 of the District Magistrate, Darbhanga to the Director of the Company and Annexure 14 jointly written by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga to the Industrial Development Commissioner, Bihar, Patna seeking guidelines with respect to the situation prevailing in the Mill.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the orders, contained in Annexure 1/A and 11, clearly amount to putting embargo upon implementation of the Scheme, which forms part of the order of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel contended that the order (Annexure 1/A), besides being in utter violation of the order of the Supreme Court, has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natu...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Ram and ors. Vs. Ganga Rai and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants against a judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2000, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Motihari, in title a Appeal No. 113/1989 Mahesh Ram and Ors. v. Ganga Rai and Ors., whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.4.89, passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Sikarhana, in title Suit No. 7/76 of 1885/1988 Ganga Rai v. Dewan Ram and Ors.. The suit was decreed which has been affirmed in appeal. Hence this appeal at the instance of the defendants. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents in brief is that the suit land measuring 5 1/2 decimals, appertaining to khata No. 3, plot No. 270, stood recorded as Gairmazarua Malik land in RS Record of rights. The ancestors of one Sheo Raj Ram remained in possession till his life and after his death, his descendants came in possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Shakumbhri Udyog Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner, a proprietorship firm of Haryana, for a direction to the respondent-State of Bihar and its officials including the Collector, Darbhanga, to refund the amount illegally deducted from the bills of the petitioner on account of sales tax deduction on supply of blankets from Panipat, Haryana, on the ground that the supply/sale was made as a result of inter-State trade and as such no sales tax is payable under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 with regard to the supply of blankets.2. On February 22, 2003 a short tender notice was published by respondent No. 2-Collector, Darbhanga, for supply of 78,087 blankets in the district vide annexure-1 of the writ application. In terms of the said notice, the petitioner submitted his tender on February 27, 2003. The tenders submitted by the petitioner and others were considered by the District Purchase Committee under the chairmanship of respondent No. 2-Collecter, Darbhanga, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Nasriganj Balu Utkhanan Shramik Sahyog Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
R.M. Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the District Magistrate, Rohtas and the Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas (respondent No. 4 and 5 respectively), who, as alleged, in complete violation of the rules recommended for settlement of Amiyawar Balu Ghat with one defaulter even though the petitioner, being the Labour Co-operative Society operating in Nasrignaj block of Rohtas district and has preferential right of settlement under Rule 12 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), offered Rs. 1,00,000/- more than the highest bidder for settlement of Balu Ghat.2. In short, the relevant facts are that Balu Ghat in question was put on auction on 12.12.2003, 15.12.2003 and 19.12.2003, but none except the petitioners appeared for settlement. They claimed to have deposited 10% of the bid amount on 19.12.2003, which was accepted by the respondents. The respondents again issued an advertisement fixi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »