Patna Court April 2004 Judgments
Anita Devi and ors. Vs. Jai Narayan Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
M.L. Visa, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 28.4.2001 and award dated 27.8.2001 passed by Mr. Mahendra Narain Singh, Third Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 92 of 1998, with the consent of parties, is finally disposed of at this stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure.2. Brief facts of the case are that wife of deceased Ram Bilas Mandal, appellant No. 1 and his minor daughters and sons, appellant Nos. 2 to 5, had filed a compensation case claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation after the death of Ram Bilas Mandal who died in an accident by a truck No. BHA 2665. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, respondent No. 2 is the driver of the vehicle and respondent No. 3 is the insurance company with which the vehicle on the date of accident is said to have been insured. After hearing the parties, the court below allowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and held respondent No. 3, the insurance comp...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnudeo Mahto and ors. Vs. Kodai Sahni and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
M.L. Visa, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal filed by appellants against the judgment and award dated 7.9.1999 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur (in short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 29 of 1992 dismissing the case of appellant, with the consent of the parties, is being disposed of finally at the stage of hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Short facts of the case are that on 20.4.1991 deceased Chandradeo Mahto alias Bataha was returning to his home with his brother Indradeo Mahto alias Nanhki on a cycle from Delhi Auto Centre, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur and when he reached Pakri Chowk, driver Ramesh Rai (respondent No. 2) by driving rashly and negligently a Tractor bearing No. BPF 2917 knocked him down causing his death for which sadar P.S. Case No. 74 of 1991 was instituted by Vishundeo Mahto, appellant No. 1, father of deceased. Appellants, who include father, mother and brothers of decease...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamapado GoraIn Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.2.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, whereby the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction allowed the revision application filed by Jagarnath Gorain and set aside the order passed by the appellate Court.2. The petitioner by filing an application under Section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act before the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad claiming preemption on the ground of being adjoining Raiyat of the Plot No. 1225 of khata No. 10 situated in Mauza Deoli, P.S. Govindpur District-Dhanbad which was purchased by the respondent No. 5 and 6 from the respondent No. 7 by registered deed dated 19.2.1992', of which Registration was completed on 28.7.1993. The claim of the petitioner was that the said land was agricultural land as the petitioner is an adjoining Raiyat of the land in question and, therefore, he has a claim of preemption over the same.3. Whereas the case of the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the intervenors and learned Advocate General.2. The batch of analogous cases has been filed for common cause for declaring Rule 1(4) of the Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 2002 as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and also being discriminatory and unworkable and to quash the impugned press communique dated 13.6.2003, issued in daily newspaper 'Hindustan', whereby and whereunder the State Government has transferred all the headmasters/assistant teachers of secondary schools and has directed them to join the original schools, where they were initially appointed and posted, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the communique.3. To consider the grievances of the writ petitioners necessary facts and the existing Act and Rules also the service conditions and mode of transfer of the teachers are required to be noticed.4. The petitioners are the headmasters/headmistresses ...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Choudhary Vs. Patna Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Supervisor. The petitioner later on under Annexure-4 was allowed to work as Tax Collector with effect from 11.8.1987. The petitioner was thereafter relieved on 14.8.1987 to join the post of Tax Collector. Since thereafter, the petitioner continued to work as Tax Collector. Thereafter on 15.6.1995 vide Corporation Order No. 27/95 under Annexure-8 the petitioner and seven others were absorbed in the cadre and their services were regularised as Tax Collectors. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work but all of a sudden on 3.4.2002 vide Memo No. 289 the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation Sri A.B. Prasad reviewed the matter and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner directed that Order No. 27/95 (Annexure-8) stands recalled. He also observed that in the channel of promotion Sanitary Supervisor cannot be promoted as Tax Collector, therefore, the order dated 15.6.1...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, L.i.C. of India and Others Vs. Sudhir Shah
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. O.P. is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 19.3.1997 passed by District Forum, Munger in Complaint Case No. 406/1996 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 31,000/- only which includes the policy amount and the compensation and cost of litigation. 2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant had obtained a money back policy which commenced from 28.11.1996. The policy was obtained under table and term 74-15 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only. The mode of payment of premium was quarterly. The complainant paid premium regularly without any default from 28.1.1989 to 28.7.1989. Thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,623/- on 27.6.1994 against three quarterly premiums due on 28.10.1989, 28.1.1990 and 28.4.1990. The reason disclosed by the complainant for delaying payment was that he has gone outside in connection with his business. The above amount included three qu...
Tag this Judgment!Chankya Picture Palace and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Mridula Mishra, J.1. M/s. Chankya Picture Palace, Exhibition Road, Patna, Om Narayan Sharma, Managing Partner of M/s. Chankya Picture Palace and Surendra Kumar, Manager of M/s. Chankya Picture Palace are the petitioners in this application.2. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 204(C) of 2003 including the order dated 30.1.2003 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Facts giving rise to the present application are that the opposite party No. 2. the Bihar State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') through its Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue) filed Complaint Case No. 204(C) of 2003 against the petitioners. Allegations in the complaint petition was that the Board gave H.T. connection to M/s. Chankya Picture Palace in the year 1982 on the assurance that the Chankya Picture Palace will pay the charges as per t...
Tag this Judgment!Mithelesh Pati Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the no confidence motion dated 10.10.2002 passed against the petitioner removing him from the office of Parmukh of the Panchayat Samiti and notice to that effect dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure-1).2. In the thicket of facts pleaded, facts which are necessary for the decision of the present application are that the petitioner was elected as Parmukh of Panchayat Samiti, Bagha-I, hereinafter referred to as the Samiti, Members of the said Samiti gave notice dated 18.9.2002 requesting the petitioner to convene the special meeting of the Samiti to consider the no confidence motion brought against him. Ultimately the Executive Officer issued notice dated 3.10.2002 (Annexure-2) conveying that the special meeting of the Samiti shall be held on 10.10.2002 and the item of agenda would be the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner. Meeting was so held and the motion of no confidence has been carried out again...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Md. Ehtesam
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Nagendra Rai, J. The point involved in all the cases under reference being the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of accordingly.2. This is reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna to answer the following question of the law.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that as the penalty was imposed on the firm for delay in filing the return, no penalty was leviable on the assessee, who was a partner of the firm under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 196l.'3. In all the ten cases, the same question has been referred and in five reference cases, namely, Tax Case Nos. 27,28,29,30 and 33 of 1989, the opposite party is Md. Ehtesam and in other five Tax Case Nos. 31,32,34,35 & 36 the opposite party is Md. Ezaz.4. The ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Jiwan Rai and ors. Vs. Deoki Nandan Rai and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant against the judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1987, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Appeal No. 36 of 1984/2 of 1986 Ram Lagan Rai alias Lakhan Rai v. Deokinandan Rai and Ors., whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.6.1984, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sub-Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Suit No. 35 of 1976/7 of 1984 Deoki Nandan Rai v. Ram Lagan Rai and Anr.. The learned trial Court had decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to plot No. 47. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. The case of the plaintiff (respondent) as per the plaint is that one Birjoo Mahto son of Akloo Mahto, owned and possessed one block of one and half bighas of land in village Harbanshpur. He transferred ten kathas of land from the northern extremity of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »