Patna Court November 2005 Judgments
Dadan Tiwary Vs. Ramji Tiwary and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
M.L. Visa, J.1. With the consent of the parties this appeal was heard for its final disposal when it was listed under the heading for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with IA No. 4204 of 2003.2. The appellant Dadan Tiwary has filed this appeal against the order dated 29.7.2003 passed by Subordinate Judge-IX, Sasaram, in TS No. 127/01 rejecting the prayer of appellant to appoint a receiver.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Dadan Tiwary filed TS No. 127/01 against the respondents who are his brothers and nephews and his mother Manikraj Devi claiming his 1/4th share in the suit properties situate at Mauza Surajpura and Barun within Dawat PS mentioned in schedule 'kha' as well as properties described in Schedule-'Ka' of the plaint. His case is that the suit property is joint family property. Manikraj Devi had also filed Title Suit No. 398/2000 stating therein that the property described in Schedule-I of her plaint which is the property descr...
Tag this Judgment!Dau Dubey and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This writ application arises out of orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act').3. It has been brought on record by way of an affidavit by the private respondents that during pendency of this writ application, respondent No. 6 filed Title (P) Suit No. 162 of 1992, where the petitioners are party defendants. It is further stated that the petitioners defendants have acknowledged the claim of the plaintiff.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes this aspect of the matter, but admits that Title (P) suit is pending in the Court below in between the parties.5. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, extract of the order-sheet dated 7.5.1994 of Title (P) Suit has been annexed showing that the plaintiff and the defendants have appeared in the Court below and have fil...
Tag this Judgment!Mostt Jharia Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 3 dated 18.01.1988, passed by the revisional authority in exercise of its power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereafter to be referred to as 'Act').3. It is stated at the bar that the consolidation proceeding is no more in vogue nor the parties have been affected by the order impugned.4. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the revisional authority may affect the right, title and interest of the parties.5. Till date the order impugned, as I am informed, has not been affected nor it has caused any prejudice to the respective parties.6. In absence of the consolidation proceeding, in my opinion, the order impugned shall, in no way, affect the right, title and interest of the parties and it can only be done by the competent Civil Court, in case aggrieve...
Tag this Judgment!Lallan Kumar Sahni Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 3 dated 6.8.1984, whereby and whereunder prayers of the petitioner for refund of 50% of bid amount and to withdraw the certificate proceeding have been rejected.3. It is submitted by Mr. Pashupati Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner that though a bid was held on 4.2.1983 and the bid of the petitioner was accepted being the highest one, no Parwana was issued putting him in possession, and, therefore, the certificate proceeding initiated against him under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that merely because the petitioner had deposited 50% of the bid amount he would not be deemed to be in possession. Learned Counsel points out from the impugned order that the matter was pending consideration before the Divisional Commissioner and the parties have not entered i...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Arya and ors. Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
M.L. Visa, J.1. With the consent of the parties this appeal has been heard for its final hearing when it was listed under the heading for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2.5.2000 and award dated 17.5.2000 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge cum Claim Tribunal, Jehanabad, in M.V. Accident Claim Case No. 11 of 1995/30 of 1992 for enhancement of amount of compensation and 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. Ranjit Kumar aged about 5 years was son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of remaining appellants. On 6.2.1987 at about 4.45 p.m. appellant No. 1 came from Kurtha on his Moped and stopped the Moped before his house and at that time deceased Ranjit was coming near him by the left flank of road when a truck bearing registration No. BRV 8755 which was being driven negligently and rashly by the truck driver crushed Ranjit who died at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›