Patna Court August 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Regional Sales Manager, Coal India Limited Vs. General Manager Distric ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This application is being filed for review of orders dated 8.4.2004/ 27.4.2004 by which civil revision No. 11.83/02 was disposed of with certain directions.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the last sentence of the order dated 8.4.2004 passed in civil revision No. 1183/2002 which reads as follows :-- 'It may be made clear that this order will not affect in any manner the order dated 11.6.2001 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Arrah, in Misc. Appeal No. 79/2000.'4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had already filed a petition for review of the order dated 11.6.2001 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 79/2000, which is pending before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Arrah, and the aforesaid observation may affect the result of that application.5. This civil revision had arisen out of Title Suit No. 121/2000 in which the plaintiff-petitioner filed a petition under Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC for restraini...
Patna Offset Press Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
C.K. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing letter dated November 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Director (Recovery) of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 64,325/- along with interest, the dues outstanding against Balmiki Press.2. In view of the order, which I propose to pass in this application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the authority of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation issued the impugned notice demanding payment of Rs. 64,325/-from the petitioner alongwith interest on the ground that it had taken over Balmiki Press and in view of Section 93A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, as the said establishment has been transferred in favour of the petitioner, the amount outstanding against Balmiki Press has to be paid by the petitioner.3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that it had not taken over the Balmiki Press and without giving ...
Sita Devi and ors. Vs. Sita Devi Alias Bhuneshwari Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
V.N. Sinha, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the Order dated 17-9-2002 passed by Subordinate Judge I, Katihar, in succession case No. 10 of 2000 by which the Court below has rejected the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code') praying, inter alia, to stay the proceeding of the aforesaid succession case until disposal of succession case No. 2 of 2000 pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Begusarai, on the ground that in the aforesaid two succession cases parties as also the prayer is similar to grant the succession certificate in regard to the estate of Late Hari Shankar Pandit, the Subsequent succession case No. 10 of 2000 pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Katihar, should remain stayed until disposal of succession case No. 2 pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Begusarai. Before proceeding to consider the challenge made to the aforesaid Order it is necessary to mention a few basic fac...
Ahmadi Khatoon and anr. Vs. Mohammad Taslim and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
R.N. Prasad, J.1. Both the cases arise out of the order dated 23.12,2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 11/2003 and 12/2003, whereby the miscellaneous cases were dismissed on the ground that Title Suit No. 116/89 was decreed on 9.5.2003 on contest and, as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside such decree. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the judgment, and decree passed in Title Suit No. 116/89 they could have filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree.2. The relevant facts of the case are that Title Suit No. 116/89 was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party for partition of their share in the joint family property, in which the mother of the petitioners was defendant No. 1, who died during pendency of the suit and, as such, the petitioners were substituted. The petitioners in C.R. No. 256/2004 appeared and also participated in the suit till framing of the issues and also filed an application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner, which was rejected. Thereafter, t...
Sarwan Kumar Rai Vs. Bhuneshwar Mandal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgments dated 18.2.1999 and 12.2.1999 passed in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Case Nos. 23 and 34 of 1994 respectively by 4th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Purnia, whereby the claim of claimants has been allowed in part on contest with cost against the owner of the vehicle (appellant herein).2. It appears that the appellant appeared in the claim case and filed written statement. He produced a cover note of the insurance certificate of the vehicle in question bearing No. DR 39-2368, however, registration number was not mentioned in the insurance certificate and the certificate only contains engine number and chassis number. The appellant owner in the petition filed before the Tribunal stated that at the time of taking the policy, registration number of the vehicle was not allotted, as such, in the insurance policy the engine number and chassis number has been mentioned. Further, ap...
Smt. Sulochana Verma Vs. Sri Ram Chandra Prasad
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.3.2004 passed by Munsif, IIIrd, Gaya in Mortgage Suit No. 33 of 1997 by which he refused to frame preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit.2. The relevant facts of the case are that plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 102 of 1990 against the defendant- petitioner. The suit was for a decree of redemption of the mortgage holding in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Rs. 4680/- or any amount which the Court determines and for direction to the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the mortgaged property to the plaintiff failing which the same may be effected through the process of the Court. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and filed written statement. The suit was decreed on 10.12.2002 against which the petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 1 of 2003. After hearing the parties the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. ...
Ravi Shankar Pandey Alias Nata Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Mridula Mishra, J. 1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order of detention dated 15-11-2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah (Annexure-1) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the order dated 24-11-2003 (Annexure 2) passed by the State Government approving the said order of detention in exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act and also the order dated 30-12-2003 (Annexure 6) passed by the State Government confirming the aforesaid order of detention under Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the Act. 2. Section 12(1) of the Act lays down that the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social element can...
Dilip Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. Jadubir Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are defendants in title eviction suit No. 18/1996 which was filed by the admitted land-lord, namely, plaintiffs-opposite parties/for eviction of the tenants, namely, defendants-petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent.3: The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 28.1.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned second Munsif, Bhagalpur, allowed the plaintiffs petition under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and directed the defendants-petitioners to deposit the rent of the suit premises from July, 2003 to January, 2004, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month within a period of 15 days and also to deposit the future rent every month by the 15th of the succeeding month at the same rate.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly the rent of the suit ...
Shiv Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner is a retired Government employee. He retired from service as Cholera Supervisor on 30.9.2001. At the time of retirement his pay was Rs. 6805/-. After retirement he was initially allowed provisional pension. His retiral dues were finally settled in 2003 and payments under different heads of retiral dues were made to him. From the pension intimation memo and the D.C.R. Gratuity Payment Order issued in his favour on 4.8.2003 from the office of the. Accountant General it appears that his pension was fixed on the pay of Rs. 6200/-instead of Rs. 6805/-, the pay last drawn by him. Further, from the D.C.R. Gratuity Payment Order it appears that from Rs. 1,48,335.00 sanctioned as gratuity payable to him, a sum of Rs. 1,22,600/- was deducted and the balance amounting to only Rs. 25,735/- was paid to him.2. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the action of the concerned authorities in fixing his retiral dues, including pension on a lower pay than th...
Hari Kishore Pandey Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The present writ application depicts a sorry state of affairs under the hands and control of Rajendra Agricultural University, Samastipur.2. The facts in nutshell for purposes of disposal of this writ application are that the Respondent No. 6 was made Incharge of the Office of Assistant Comptroller (Audit), the petitioner being aggrieved by the said arrangement came to this Court in CWJC No. 567 of 1997. The said writ application was disposed of on 16.5.1997. The Court found that the relevant statute provides that candidates for the promotion in question will be selected on the basis of merit cum seniority. The Court also referred to the statutory provision which is as under:'Recommended percentage of vacancy should be filled up by promotion only when suitable qualified candidates are recommended on merit-cum-seniority basis by the Evaluation Committee.'3. The Court observed that in the past the criteria adopted for promotion was seniority-cum-merit in disregard of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »