Patna Court October 2005 Judgments

Madan Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

1. In this criminal writ 'habeas corpus' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, Madan Kumar Jha, a school teacher, has sought for a direction of this Court for production of his three minor daughters from the custody of respondent No. 3, Shankar Thakur alias Babloo Thakur on the premises that his legally wedded wife, Veena Devi, is staying with respondent No. 3, and his children are with them.2. It is the allegation that these three minor female children of the petitioner, allegedly, are in unlawful detention of respondent No. 3. Following aspects, which have material bearing and relevance on the merits of the issue involved and are virtually not in controversy, may be highlighted at the outset:-(a) The petitioner is the husband of Smt. Veena Devi and out of their wedlock three minor girls have been procreated;(b) Wife of the petitioner, Veena Devi, is alleged to be living in adultery with respondent No. 3. Though such a serious allegation is there, but, ...

Ajit Ojha Vs. Lallan Ojha and ors.

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. By this Second Appeal by invocation of the provision of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) the challenge made by the appellant-original plaintiff, has been against the judgment and decree dated 1-6-1999 and 16-6-1999, respectively, passed in Title Appeal No. 116 of 1992, whereby, the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed, on 30-6-1992, by the 7th Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Title Suit No. 84 of 1985, by which the suit came to be decreed, on contest, with regard to properties shown in Schedules 'Kha' and 'Ga' of the suit (suit properties).2. The present appellant is the original ' plaintiff who being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal has come up before this Court, inter alia, contending that the first appellate Court has committed grave legal wrong and serious error. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff that there is a 'substantial question of law.'3....

Sushil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, in both the applications.2. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 21703 of 2003 would be the husband while petitioners in 35584 of 2003 would be his family members. The opposite party No. 2 in both the applications would be the wife of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. 21703 of 2003.3. A complaint case would have been filed on 2.1.2003 registered as Complaint Case No. 5 of 2003 by opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called the 'complainant') under Sections 406, 379, 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Pohibition Act. The allegation would be that the complainant was married on 29.4.1999. The husband and his family members would have created demands for dowry during the marriage. Even thereafter the husband would allegedly ignore the complainant for association with his sister-in-law. The complainant would have been humiliated, assaulted and demands made for a motor-cycle. Her jewellery would ...

Deonath Shrivastava and anr. Vs. Mostt. Gaitri Srivastava

Court: Patna

Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19-3-1990 passed by Sri Ram Kishore Singh, District Judge, Katihar, in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1988 passed by Sri Ram Narain Singh Sub-Ordinate Judge, Katihar, in Title Suit No. 43 of 1986.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree the defendants-appellants have preferred this appeal,3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff-respondent, namely, Most. Gayatri Srivastava filed a suit before the sub-Judge, Katihar, against the defendants appellants for partition of the suit land with respect to her share. The suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 43 of 1986. The case of the plaintiff was that Mahadeo Lal was the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. He was working in the police department and out of his earning he acquired considerable properties in his own name as well as in the name o...

Muni Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Manohar Lal Visa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-6-1992 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1988/28 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo R. I, for 3 years under Section 25(A) of Arms Act, R I. for 5 years under Section 26 of Arms Act and R, I. for 7 years under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Appellants were convicted under Section 35 of Arms Act but no separate sentence was awarded under this count.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that informant Sureshwari Pandey (not examined) on 24-10-80 while investigating another case registered as Hasua P. S. Case No. 10/80 received secret information that appellants had kept stolen articles in their village. Informant entered this information in Station Diary as Entry No. 431 dated 24-10-80 and along with Sayabuddin and Md. Sayeed, both Executive-Magistrates (not examined), SI...

Dr. Mrs. Manorama Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General No. 2 for the State.2. The petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.3.2000 in CWJC No. 7033 of 1998.3. This Court in the said writ application would have proceeded to determine the question of the equivalence of the post of Assistant Clinical Pathologist to that of Associate Professor or Assistant Professor and whether the same be a teaching post.4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that this Court on discussion inter alia relying upon the letter of the Medical Council of India, dated 24.2.1961 as also assumption of the official respondents in pursuance thereof would have held that the post of Assistant Clinical Pathologist be equivalent to lecturer and was thus a teaching post. In the background of this factual finding the matter would have then been directed to be Decided by the respondents as to whether the post of Assistant Clinical Pathologist would ...

Shree Krishna Chandra Pandey Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ190CAT

1. A writ petition, (CWJC No. 11332 of 1996) was filed by the applicant against Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as 'The Sangathan') and others praying therein for issuance of appropriate writ directing the Sangathan and its officials to accept the joining of the applicant to the post of TGT (Mathematics) in which he was working. The matter remained pending before the Hon'ble Court but by order dated 08.05.2003, the Hon'ble Court transferred the petition to this Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction, which is how this application has come-up before us for disposal.2. The facts, in brief, as coming out of the application are that having been appointed as a Primary Teacher under the Sangathan at Barauni in due course the applicant was promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher (for short, TGT) (Mathematics) and worked satisfactorily throughout. Thereafter, the applicant applied for the post of Secondary Teacher in Zambia for which he was interviewed and was appointed as ...

Guru Charan Singh and ors. Vs. Mahatam Singh and anr.

Court: Patna

1. This civil revision application has been placed before us as a result of reference having been made by one of us (S.N. Hussain, J).2. The reference has been made on the point as to whether when a decree passed on the basis of compromise is challenged on the ground of fraud etc. by filing a suit, the same is maintainable or not in view of clear bar created under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit challenging the decree based on compromise recorded in Partition Suit No. 17 of 1956 on the ground of fraud. The defendant petitioner appeared in the suit and challenged the maintainability of the suit in view of the provision contained under Order XXIII Rule 3 and 3A of the Code. The trial court held that the suit is maintainable and negatived the objection raised by the defendant petitioner.4. The said order of the court below has been challenged by t...

Gaurav Abduction Case Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

1. Pursuant to the order, which we have recorded during the first session, today, we met the victim minor boy Gaurav Kumar, alias Golu, aged about 9 years, and the parents of the victim and the Police Officers of the area, incharge of this matter, namely, Shri Amrik Singh Nambiar, Zonal Inspector General of Police, Patna, and Mr. Kudan Krishnan, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, as also Shri Ashish R. Sinha, Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, individually in our chambers and we were apprised separately by all of them. We have also prepared a short note in respect of the narrations, the boy made in our presence. Thereafter we have also taken the views of the learned Additional Advocate General II, Shri S.K. Ghose.2. In the Second half of the day, pursuant to our earlier directions, the Director General of Police, Shri Sinha, remained present in the open Court and he is impressed upon to take the lead role for monitoring the kidnapping and abduction cases in the State, and ...

Ram Chander Sah and anr. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

M.L. Visa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.4.1992 and order dated 7.4.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1989 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo RI for 10 years each under Section 304B, RI for 7 years each under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 6 months each under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal that on 9.7.1987 at 6.00 p.m. informant Shiv Prasad Sah (PW 9) went to Nanpur Police Station and got his fardbeyan recorded by SI Tarkeshwar Sharon (PW 10) stating therein that his sister deceased Prem Sheela was married about 4 years before to appellant Ram Chandra Sah. After marriage, appellants started torturing the informant and his family members on account of demand of dowry and for not getting dowry they sent Prem Sheela to her 'naiher' and informed that although they had rece...