Patna Court July 2004 Judgments
Madhu Mangal Tiwary Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
R.M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.1996 issued vide Memo No. 464 by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Saran, Chapra (Respondent No. 4) (contained in Annexure-1), by which he has been denied the payment of pensionary benefits.2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Godown Operator in Supply Department, State of Bihar on 10.8.1967 and subsequently on 5.2.1974 the services of the petitioner along with another similarly situated employee Bishwanath Singh were transferred and placed under the disposal of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, wherefrom he retired on 31.5.1992 as Class IV employee. After retirement of the petitioner, his pension papers along with the papers of aforesaid similarly situated employee Bishwanath Singh were sent to the Collector, Saran, Chapra by the Respondent-Corporation and Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-1, informed the Corporation that petitioner and the said Bishwanath Singh are not en...
Tag this Judgment!Dumraon Properties and Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Bihari Lal Gupta and o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh for the appellant and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha for the respondents. The plaintiff is the appellant against a common order dated 21.5.2002, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Buxar, in Title Appeal Nos. 8 of 1991 and 9 of 1991, Bihari Lal Gupta and Ors. v. Dumraon Properties and Enterprises (P) Ltd., whereby he has set aside the common judgment and decree dated 23.2.1991, passed by the learned 1st, Munsif, Buxar, in Title Suit No. 31 of 1980/8 of 1990 and Title Suit No. 32 of 1980/9 of 1990. The trial Court had decreed the suits for eviction which has been set aside by the impugned judgment and the matters have been remitted back to the trial Court for a fresh judgment in accordance with law after determining the issue relating to payment of ad valorem Court fee raised by the parties before the lower appellate Court.2. M.A. No. 336 of 2002 arises out of Title Appeal No. 8 of 1991 which in its turn, has ari...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarika Nath Pahari and ors. Vs. Ganga Bishun Pahari
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who were Opposite parties in Misc. Case No. 18/2002 which was filed by the Opposite party of this civil revision under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) claiming a right of succession over the suit property, possession of which was alleged to be taken away by the revision-petitioners who were Opposite parties in the said Misc. Case.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2003 passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case by which the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gaya, had rejected the objection of the revision-petitioners seeking dismissal of the Misc. Case as not maintainable and for rejection of the same under the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.3. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners contended that Section 193 of the Act, specifically provides that the District Judge to whom such application is made should be...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Cold Storage and Allied Industries Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, grievance of the petitioner is on account of non-redeeming of mortgage and return of the title documents filed by them.2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the letter of the branch manager dated December 6, 1983, contained in annexure 7/B itself would show that the entire loan amount was paid by the petitioner. Annexure 7/B has been issued by the branch manager, but, the account maintained in the Corporation shows certain outstanding dues against the petitioner even up till now.3. Earlier the matter was heard on several occasions and learned counsel for the Corporation was directed to get the account properly verified, and, accordingly, Mr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has produced the statement of accounts with respect to account No. 1 and account No. 2 after supplying copy thereof to learned counsel for the petitioner. The said statement is being kept on record. After perusal of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Kumar Sao @ Shambhu Sah @ Shambhu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the objector, the objector is also present in person, and the Counsel for the State.2. In Complaint Case No. 766C/2002 the petitioner has been made accused on the allegations made by the wife that he ill-treated her and committed theft of her ornaments and sum of Rs. 30,000/-. He is in jail since 19.11.2003. The allegations of the prosecutrix are that as a result of a love affair the applicant and the original complainant married. They stayed at their uncle's place for some days and thereafter they went to her father's place and at her father's place her husband changed his attitude and started mistreating the complainant. He started making a demand of Rs. 50,000/-, when the father of the complainant asked the applicant not to conduct improperly, the husband stealthily removed her ornaments and sum of Rs. 30,000/-.3. On being asked learned Counsel for the complainant informed the Court that no First Information Repo...
Tag this Judgment!Punyadeo Sharma and ors. Vs. the Additional Member, Board of Revenue a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. The purchasers are the petitioners with respect to proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Areas and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure 3), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, whereby he has allowed the four revision applications preferred by the pre-emptors, has set aside the order of the learned appellate authority, and has restored that of the learned first authority. In other words, the learned first authority had allowed the applications for pre-emption.2. It is with respect to the purchase of a portion of plot No. 721 by four different documents by three full brothers in the manner indicated hereinafter, and the claim of pre-emption has been raised by the same person whose heirs are respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein. The sketch map provided by the learned counsel for the petitioners as p...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Nagendra Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the communication, as contained in annexure 6 dated 15th July, 2000, whereby and whereunder his representation has been rejected refusing to appoint him on regular basis. 3. It appears that for the same self grievance, the petitioner earlier had come to this Court in CWJC No. 4410 of 1998 and this Court after examining the claim of the petitioner came to a conclusion that the petitioner was working on daily wages on contractual basis and payment, accordingly, was used to be made to him as per performance of his work and dismissed the writ application. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court was challenged in LPA No. 1241 of 1999, which also was dismissed with observation that if the State Government frames a scheme for regularisation of Class IV employees, the case of the petitioner should also be considered, if he is eligible for the same. 4. It appears that in light of the observa...
Tag this Judgment!Chunchun Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. The writ petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to accept his joining in the light of the award dated 23.9.1991 passed by the Labour Court, Bhagalpur in Reference Case No. .6 of 1990 and to pay current as well as arrear salary along with the Interest. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated tht the award passed by the Labour court has already been implemented and the petitioner has been reinstated in service. 4. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that since his joining was accepted in the year 2001 the arrear of salary must have been paid and he must be getting his current salary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on this states that he has no instruction in this matter. 6. In view of the statements made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Chandra Kant Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's father, late Chandra Sekhar Singh, was working as an Assistant Teacher in Kabir Keshaw Madhya Vidyalaya, Nawdiha, Hilsa (Nalanda) (A Government-aided-school) died on 21.3.1996. The petitioner being the son made an application for his appointment on compassionate ground, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee made recommendations on 16.12.1996, certain instructions were sought, thereafter the Managing Committee of the school passed Resolution No. 3 on 2.7.1998 and issued the order of appointment on 4.7.1998. The said appointment was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda vide his letter No. 1968 dated 11.7.1998. The Special Director, Secondary Education vide his letter No. 329 dated 3.2.1999 required sanction for fixation of salary and pay, no orders were received from the Government, therefore, the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 16204/2001. The petitioner made a submis...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrapal Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey for respondent No. 5, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey for respondent No. 6. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 nor for respondent No. 4 (Dinesh Singh). This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo No. 58, dated 31.5.2003 (Annexure -1), issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 (The Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Kaimoor at Bhabhua), whereby settlement of Kakrait Ghat for the period 1.6.2003 to 31.3.2006 has been made in favour of respondent No. 5 (Sunil Kumar Singh) for a consideration money of Rs. 11,29,000/- for ferry rights to the exclusion of the petitioner.2. A brief background of the present dispute is essential for effective disposal of the issues raised in this writ petition. Respondent No. 3 had earlier issued a notice bearing Memo No. 706, dated 28.2.2003 (Annexure-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »