Patna Court March 2005 Judgments
Ramanand Sharma and anr. Vs. Smt. Mataraj Rajeshwary Bhagwati Devi and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners are defendants of Eviction Suit No. 31 of 1989 which was filed by OP No. 1, namely, Smt. Mataraj Rajeshwary Bhagwati Devi, the deity of the temple at Baridaulatpur, Jamalpur, through its Sebait Gorelal Mishra for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent by the said defendants.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6.11.1998 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Munsif, 1st, Munger, allowed the petition of opposite party numbers 2 to 4 for their substitution in place of Gorelal Mishra and for setting aside abatement due to the delay in filing of the substitution petition.4. The short fact of this case that earlier Gorelal Mishra filed title Suit No. 82 of 1971 for declaration of his title over the suit properties. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge, II, Munger, on 4.3.1982 which was challenged by him in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1982 which was also ...
Tag this Judgment!Fuleshwar Kamath and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. In all these writ applications common questions of law with little variation of fact arise and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners of all these writ applications were working either as Basic Health Worker, Family Planning workers, Jeep Drivers, Vaccinator, Dresser, Peon and Ward Attendants before their promotion as Clerks, a Class III post excepting Ranjit Kumar Sinha and Fuleshwar Kamat, petitioners of CWJC Nos. 9401 of 2003 and CWJC No. 6354 of 2003 who were promoted as Family Welfare Workers. According to the petitioners, the Civil Surgeon, Madhepura sought details from various Medical Officers of different Hospitals and Primary/Health Centres of such employees who can be promoted as Clerk. It is their assertion that in the light thereof, the Controlling Officer, where the petitioners were working, forwarded their names, although the details thereof have not been furnished. Ultimately, p...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Chandra Purvey and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.2. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated '3.7.2002, passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Jhanjharpur in Misc. Case No. 1/2002. This Misc. case was initiated on an application filed by the petitioners themselves with a prayer that the boundary of plot Nos. 1213, 1214 and 1219 should be demarcated on the basis of the possession of the parties taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 8/57, Title Appeal No. 195 of 1953, Title Suit No. 25 of 1986 as well as Title Appeal No. 75 of 1996, of 2002.3. By the impugned order the SDO Jhanjharpur taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed in different suits and appeals has directed to demarcate the land under dispute on the basis of the possession of the parties as well as the finding recorded in the title suit. Since the petitioners did not succee...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Agrawal Vs. Jai Prakash Agrawala and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
S. Nayer Hussain, J.1. The petitioner was defendant No. 7 in Title Suit No. 172 of 1993, which was initiated at the instance of opposite party No. 1, who filed a petition on 23-12-1992 in the Court below under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) for directing the Arbitrators to submit the award dated 10-12-1992 in the Court and to pass a judgment in terms of that award. The said petition was converted into a suit bearing Title Suit No. 172 of 1993 by the learned Court below on 21-8-1993.2. The short fact of the case is that the properties involved were joint family properties and all the parties referred the matter to two Arbitrators as per their arbitration agreement dated 1-10-1992 for partition of those properties, whereafter the said Arbitrators prepared their award on 10-12-1992. ' After filing of the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act by the Plaintiff on 23-12-1992, the learned Court below sent...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Petitioners are the purchasers who have filed this application for quashing the order dated 4.3.2002, passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-5) passed in Rev. Case No. 232 of 2001 and the order dated 30.10.2001, passed by the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 17 of 2001 (Annexure-4) as well as the order dated. 2.5.2001, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Ceiling) in Morhorah Saran in Land Ceiling Case No. 23 of 2000-2001 (Annexure-3) whereby the pre-emption application filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act has been allowed. Petitioners have claimed to be the benami purchasers of their husband who according to the petitioners themselves are the adjoining raiyat of the vended land i.e. Plot No. 482 measuring 1 katha situated in village Rahimpur in the district of Saran.2. The land under dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar and anr. Vs. Janardan Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. Both the appeals have been filed by the State of Bihar and its officers and the points involved in both the appeals are one and the same, as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. LPA No. 64 of 2005 has been filed against the order dated 11.12.1998 passed in CWJC No. 8954 of 1998 whereby this Court directed the Director General Board to consider the cases of writ petitioners--respondents Janardan Prasad Singh (now dead) and Indu Bhushan Prasad for out of turn promotion in terms of Rule 660C of the Bihar Police Manual to the post of Dy. S.P. in the light of the two judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court contained in Annexure-6 and 6/1 to the aforesaid writ application.3. LPA No. 70 of 2005 has been filed against the order dated 11.2.1999 passed in CWJC No. 9522 of 1998 whereby similar direction was issued by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner--respond...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sumari Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the notice dated 19.1.1999 issued under the signature of the Addl. Collector (Land Ceiling), Gaya in Ceiling Case No. 101 of 1981 -82 (Annexure 3) whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce record and evidence before respondent No. 3 on 3.2.1999 as Ceiling Case No. 101 of 1981 -82 has been transferred by the Collector Gaya to respondent No. 3 of conducting enquiry under Section 5(i)(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 21.8.1999, passed by the Additional Collector in the aforesaid ceiling case (Annexure 8) whereby 31 acres 72 1/2 decimal of land situated in village Kamaldah, Anchal Paraiya, District Gaya have been declared ferzi belonging to th...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Traders Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
1. The petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm through its sole proprietor Arun Kumar, has filed the present application for quashing the order dated October 19, 2000, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 4), who in exercise of power under Section 17(3) read with Section 16(8) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed an order of assessment in which he has included the turnover of the period May 21, 1997 to November 16, 1997 in the taxable turnover, the appellate order dated April 25, 2001, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 3) and the order of the Tribunal dated July 22, 2004 by which the appellate authority and the revisional authority have upheld the order of the assessing authority.2. The controversy in this case is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on sale of country made liquor for the period of May 21, 1997 to November 16, 1997 ?3. It is an admitted fact t...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Bihari Thakur Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. The petitioner is the retired member of Bihar Finance Service and on 31.1.1998, i.e. his date of superannuation, he was holding the substantive post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents authorities to make payment of post retiral dues i.e. full pension, gratuity, leave encashment, remaining amount of group instance as well as the rent and allowances which were payable to him from 3.2.1996 to 31.1.1998 with statutory and penal interest. The petitioner has been paid full amount of G.P.F. but only 90% of provision pension was sanctioned to him and no gratuity or leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner.3. The petitioner entered the Bihar Finance Service after being declared successful in the 19th Combined Competitive examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. While posted as Treasury Officer, Ranchi, he was suspended on 3.2.1996. A criminal case...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Devendra Sharma Vs. Rajendra Agriculture University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Barin Ghosh, J.1. The petitioner retired on 31st March, 1997. Subsequent thereto, the Government with effect from 1st January, 1996 revised the pay scale of its employees including the employees of the Universities. Inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee of the University, he also became entitled to his pay revised in terms of the said decision of the Government. In the event the pay of the petitioner is revised, then automatically his last pay stands revised, and accordingly his pension will increase.2. Since 1999 even till today, the petitioner has not received benefit of such revision, although, the University has revised the pay of the petitioner and has fixed the pension payable to the petitioner on the basis of such revision. Pension is part of the salary which an employee has already earned while in service. This is part and parcel of the salary which an employee has already earned, as aforesaid, while in service.3. It is surprising that such salaries are not being paid to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »