Patna Court December 2005 Judgments

Smt. Rajnandni Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged Annexure 9 dated 15.3.2000, whereby and whereunder the District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria, has approved the appointment of respondent No. 7 on the post of Headmaster in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 on the basis of resolution of the ad hoc committee of the school in question dated 25.5.1998. The petitioner has also challenged the order, as contained in Annexure 11, whereby and whereunder the Deputy Director, Primary Education, vide his letter dated 21.11.2000 has asked for pay fixation chart of respondent No. 7.3. It is precisely submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the senior most teacher of Savitri Girls Middle School, Khagaria could have been allowed to function as Headmaster of the school and in no way, respondent No. 7 could have been appointed on the post of Headmaster. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher...

Subodh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

S.K. Katriar, J.1. The three petitioners, namely, Dr. Subodh Kumar, Dr. Mahesh Hembram and Dr. Manju Kumari, have joined this writ petition seeking a common relief for enforcing the policy of reservation for the category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes for admission to the All India Entrance Examination for the Post Graduate Courses conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIMS'). The three petitioners are members of the Scheduled Caste.2. According to the writ petition, the Government of India has formulated a scheme for admission to the Post Graduate courses in medical colleges of all the State Governments as well as the Union of India including AIIMS. Each medical college is required to contribute 50% of its total seats of the PG Courses to the central pool the entrance test of which is conducted by AIIMS and the students are admitted as per the merit list prepared by it. This was perhaps with the intention to standardize medical ed...

Sachida Nand Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.2. The petitioner would be aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2003 taking cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act inter alia against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 417 of 2003.3. Learned Counsel submits that as per allegations the money in question is stated to have been paid to accused No. 2 and not to the petitioner. The cheques for return of the loan allegedly given to the complainant by accused No. 1 were signed and delivered by accused No. 1. The said cheques issued by accused No. 1 are stated to be dishonoured. The only allegation against the present petitioner would be that he allegedly persuaded the complainant to give the loan in question to accused No. 1 failing which the agency of 'Tata Salt' of accused No. 1 would be in peril and that loan so given had ...

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

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2(2006)DMC171

1. This misc. application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 120/2000 and for setting aside the order dated 3.5.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2001 by which the Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision filed against the order dated 7.9.2001 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them under the provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Renu Kumari, opposite party No. 2, who is wife of Rajesh Kumar (petitioner No. 3) lodged a case in Pirbahore Police Station being Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 120/2000 on 29,4.2000 under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioners, who are family members of her in-laws.3. According to the case of the petitioners, the aforesaid case being Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000 is a counter-...

Niranjan Diwakar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University and JC to SC 3.2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to accept his joining and pay him his due salary.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher along with several others by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Commission') on the basis of the advertisement issued and on the recommendation of the Commission the petitioner and similarly situated persons were appointed on the posts of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner was appointed in Elementary School, Rainiva Kharagpur, in the District of Munger and vide order, as contained in Annexure 1, he reported his joining, which was accepted. However, by general order, appointment of the petitioner and similarly situated persons was cancelled vide order, as contained in Annexure 4 and again appointment l...

Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Molan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.2. The petitioner is the elder son of the deceased late Rai Narayan Singh who superannuated from the post of constable on 13.8.1989 from the District of Hazaribagh. He was subsequently deceased on 5.9.1998. The mother of the petitioner also stated to Rave pre-deceased his father on 7.8.1997.3. The controversy in the present case would relate to a claim for G.P. Fund dues of the late father of the petitioner. The additional claim would be for revised pension with effect from 1.1.1996 under the 5th Pay Revision Committee Report. The last claim would be for family pension to the younger brother of the petitioner on the plea that he would be under 25 years of age.4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. A specific statement has been made in paragraph 10 of the same that the G.P. Fund dues of t...

Pratap Narayan Jha Vs. the Siwan Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner retired in the year 2003, he is not getting his pension nor his GPF amount, gratuity amount, group insurance amount and amount towards unutilised earned leave have not been paid despite his repeated requests to the authorities.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank stating therein that a departmental proceeding is still pending against him even after his superannuation. It is also stated that the petitioner is turning up before respondent No. 3 to complete certain formalities for payment of other retiral dues than the pension. Learned counsel lastly submitted that before superannuation of the petitioner he was under suspension, but no subsistence allowance even was paid to him.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear b...

Most. Lal Pari Devi Vs. Rameshwar Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

M.V. Visa, J. 1. This appeal has been heard when it was listed for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and with the consent of both the parties is being finally disposed of at this stage.2. The appellant filed claim case No. 11 of 1989/14 of 1992 claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lacs stating therein that on 3.6.1989 in the morning her husband deceased Jagarnath Singh was travelling on a maxi bearing No. BHZ 8445 for going to Doudnagar. The vehicle in village Janauria on Aurangabad-Doudnagar road met with an accident and turned down causing death of deceased. The vehicle was being driven negligently and rashly by its driver Abdul Rahim Khan, respondent No. 2. Rameshwar Singh, respondent No. 1 is said to be the owner of vehicle and New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 3 is said to be the insurer of the vehicle. About the deceased, the claimant stated that he was a Government servant employed as Panchayat Sewak posted at Doudnagar Block and his monthly ...

Sheorati Devi and anr. Vs. Sabhapati Singh

Court: Patna

M.L. Visa, J.1. Both these appeals which are directed against the common judgment dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Court of Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Claim Case No. 30/99 and Claim Case No. 31/99 awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'MV Act, 1988) are being disposed of by this order.21. The facts of the case are that on 7.3.1999 both the deceased Bharat Singh and Uday Chandra Pd. Singh were going to Hajipur on a scooter to catch a train at Hajipur Railway Station. They were being followed by two sons of deceased Uday Chandra Pd. Singh on Hero Honda Motorcycle. At about 4.30 p.m. when both the deceased reached near Jharua More at Hajipur, a tractor along with trailer bearing registration No. BR-31/6804 and BR-31/7669 came sharply and negligently from the side of Hajipur town and dashed against the scooter and both the deceased were thrown out and received multiple injuries. Deceased Bharat Singh was admitted to Sa...

Ram Naresh Thakur and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.2. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR registered as Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 275 of 2002 under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and the allegations as made out in the original complaint subsequently sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. this Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that very basic ingredients to allege offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act would not be recited in the complaint which has been sent for investigation. There would be no numbers of cheques in question, dates of their presentation in Bank and the date on which the same were dishonoured. No notice would have been served within the statutory time for non-payment by the concerned...