Patna Court July 2004 Judgments
Sitaram Mistry Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, issued vide Memo No. 21 dated 19.1.2001, as contained in Annexure 18.3. From the facts, as stated in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner, a Block Development Officer, was proceeded against departmentally in terms of Rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules on the charges of corruption and administrative incapability. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Khazaria, was appointed as the conducting officer and on submission of inquiry report and on consideration of the reply to the second show-cause notice filed by the petitioner, the order impugned was issued dismissing the petitioner from services.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order impugned on the ground that no fair inquiry was held against the petitioner nor the inquiry report was served upon him either before ser...
Tag this Judgment!Jayant Dang and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Navin Sinha, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Cr. Misc. No. 29832/2000 preferred by one Jayant Dang and Cr. Misc. No. 34712/2000 preferred by one Prabhat Ranjan. Cognizance having been taken against both the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 1558(C) of 1998, both the petitioners preferred application under Section 205, Cr PC for dispensing with their personal appearance. By an order dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna the prayer for grant of relief under Section 205, Cr PC has been declined. Thus the petitioners who are impleaded as accused No. 2 and accused No. 6 respectively in the complaint petition have approached this Court.2. The allegations as made out in Complaint Case No. 1558(C) of 1998 for the purposes of the present application may be stated succinctly. Suffice it to say that the opposite party as complainant instituted the present complaint based upon what was originally a commercial interaction by him with regard to taking of a loan from M/s Escorts...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bela Poddar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Navin Sinha, J.1. The present application on behalf of two petitioners seeks quashing of the proceedings and the order of cognizance dated 17.6.2002 in Complaint Case. No. 2105(C) of 2001 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Sections 498A and 304B of the Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Complaint case No. 2105(C) of 2001 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Patna on 8.11.2001 by the Opposite Party No. 2, father of the deceased girl, who is said to have died on 3.8.2001 at Patna, Cognizance was taken on the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, under Sections 498A and 304B of the Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by order dated 17.6.2002. The proceedings rest at his stage when the petitioners have preferred the present application.3. The averments in the complaint case are that the deceased daughter of the complainant was married on 16.1.2001 according to Hindu rites to the son ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Photo Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By its order dated 13.1.2003 the Lawazima Board gave four weeks' time to the appellant to file certified copy of the award in Claim Case No. 8 of 2001. The order of the Court was not complied with and it was, therefore, laid before the Bench on 11.8.2003 on which date the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has, by its order dated 24.5.2003, refused to pass the award (decree) in terms of the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2002 whereby Claim Case No. 8 of 2001 was allowed. The said order dated 24.5.2003 of learned Claims Tribunal is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for pressing his application dated 23.1.2003 filed for preparation of award in proper format. Heard.On perusal of record, it appears that on filing application by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pabittar Singh Alias Ram Pabittar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar an ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Kumar Uday Bhanu Roy for the petitioners, and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned junior counsel to Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, Standing Counsel (Ceiling), appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.1.2003 (Annexure-5), passed by Mr. C. Ashok Vardhan, learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 173 of 2001 (Smt. Mandiliya v. Pabittar Singh and Ors.), whereby he has remitted the matter back to the learned Collector of the district of Vaishali to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after obtaining report of the Anchal Adhikari.2. The impugned order was passed on 15.1.2003, and the present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 14.1.2004. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay as a result of which the petitioners have allowed the matter before the Court below to progress. I, therefore, do not wish to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingl...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Tapeshwar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the resolution of the State Government bearing memo No. 6577 dated 14.8.2000, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 3. Short facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties giving rise to this application are as follows :-- During the service tenure of the petitioner as Deputy Collector, Incharge Nazarat, Madhubani in between 1983 and 1990, it was detected by the then District Magistrate. Madhubani that a huge amount of Government money was embezzled from the Nazarat, Madhubani. The District Magistrate submitted a report to the Government through the Divisional Commissioner in this regard and an explanation was asked for from the petitioner by the Collector of the District on 4.7.1990 as to under what circumstances a sum of Rs. 586159.22 paise was defalcated by the then Nazir, Shamshul Hoda and as to why a disciplinary proceeding ...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Photo Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By its order dated 13.1.2003 the Lawazima Board gave four weeks' time to the appellant to file certified copy of the Award in Claim Case No. 8 of 2001. The order was not complied with and it was, therefore, laid before the Bench on 11.8.2003 on which date learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has, by his order dated 24.5.2003, refused to pass the Award (decree) in terms of the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2002 whereby Claim case No. 8 of 2001 was allowed. The said order dated 24.5.2003 of the learned Claims Tribunal is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference;'Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of OP. No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company for pressing his application dated 23.1.2003 filed for preparation of Award in proper format. Heard.On perusal of record, it appears that on filing application by Oriental Insurance Company on 23.1.2003, the District Judge'...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated September 14, 2001, passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 184(C) of 2001 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 276C and 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. It has been submitted that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of assessment which is pending before the statutory appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the direction of this court in certain matters during the pendency of the statutory appeal filing of complaint case is not justified.4. In such matters this court has consistently taken the view that soon after the passing of the assessment order the prosecution should not be launched if the matter is pending in appeal. Further action may be taken only if the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Rai Alias Visho Rai and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). It has come up for admission.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samasipur in Nagar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 146 of 2001 whereby and whereunder order for issue of warrant of arrest was passed against the present petitioners. They have contended that opposite party No. 2 had handed over written complaint to the Officer Incharge of Nagar (Muffasil) police station (opposite Party No. 2) with respect to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 20.4.2001, alleging therein that the named accused alongwith some unknown persons had assaulted the brother of opposite party No.4 and other family members. Accordingly a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, was filed after completi...
Tag this Judgment!Renu Devi Vs. Director Central Reserve Police Force, Directorate and o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J. and S.N. Hussain, J. 1. The appeal is barred by limitation.2. Having perused the averments made in the limitation petition and after having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been mad(c) out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.3.2003 passed in CWJC No. 12247 of 2001 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant for quashing the order by which her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.4. The factual matrix for disposal of the present appeal are that the husband of the appellant was Sepoy in the. CRPF and he died in harness on 21.4.96. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground and claimed appointment as lady constable. She was found fit by the authorities but was declined appointment on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »