Patna Court April 2005 Judgments
Narmedeshwar Upadhya and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-09-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Both the aforesaid cases are being heard together and they are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the parties.2. The petitioner claims the lands in dispute on the basis of two registered deeds of gift dated 1.11.1965 executed in his favour by the original owner, namely, Bhago Kuer and Dhaneshwar Kuer. Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC was initiated in which possession of respondents was decided whereafter Cr. Revision No. 590 of 1968 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.1968. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 51 of 1969 for declaration of his title over the lands on the basis of the aforesaid gifts and for recovery of possession. The said suit abated under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and Civil Revision No. 836 of 1974 challenging the same was dismissed by this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Rai Agrawal Burakia @ Prahlad Rai Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari Devi
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. The sole petitioner was the sole defendant in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1992, which was filed by the sole opposite party (Plaintiff) for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises, which is a construction over the lands measuring 5 Dhurs and is being used for commercial purposes by the defendant and hence the suit proceeded under the provision of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).2. This Civil revision has been filed under the proviso to Section 14(8) of the Act, against the order of petitioner's eviction vide judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1998, by which the learned Munsif-II, Madhubani decreed the aforesaid eviction suit and directed the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises.3. The plaintiff's claim in short was that the original owner of the suit premises was one Moti L...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Ram and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.2. The relief sought for in the present application is for quashing the order dated 15.4.2000 bearing memo No. 452 by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated.3. The petitioners were appointed on the post of clerk pursuant to the recommendation of the Divisional Establishment Committee vide memo No. 6546-48 dated 25.7.1989 issued under the signature of the then R.D.D.E. Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur along with one Sri Prakash Kumar Verma. It would be the case of the petitioners that their names were duly registered with the Employment Exchange. Their appointments came to be made in pursuance of their names having been requisitioned for and forwarded by, the Employment Exchange. The services of the aforesaid Sri Prakash Kumar Verma appointed like the petitioners came to be terminated for alleged irregularities in the appointment leading to the institution of the CWJC No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal Maskara and ors. Vs. Swadeshi Sugar Supplier Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. All these three civil revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In the above mentioned three civil revisions petitioners are the same and have challenged various orders at different stages of Execution Case No. 136/1965, which had arisen out of Money Suit No. 61 of 1956 filed by the sole opposite party, who is common in all the three revisions, for realisation of money from the petitioners' firm, namely M/s. Basudeo Prasad Chiranjilal. The said suit was decreed on 3.1.1957 by the Civil Judge I, Kanpur for a sum of Rs. 26,056.00 to be paid by the defendants-judgment debtors (petitioners) to the plaintiff- decreeholder (Opposite party). However, the said matter was transferred from Kanpur to 1st Subordinate Judge, Motihari (East Champaran) for execution of the said decree, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 8 of 1958. The said execution case was dismissed on part satisfaction of the decree, whereafter Execution Case No. 136/...
Tag this Judgment!Sogra Khatoon and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State.2. Petitioners, in this writ application, are bataidars of the lands of mauza Mahauda Domra appertaining to khata No. 16, Plot No. 100/52 having an area of 8 katha and 2 dhur, khata No. 14, Plot No. 59, having an area of 1 bigha 2 khata and 1 dhur, Plot No. 15, khata No. 50/18 having an area of 1 bigha 10 katha and 3 dhur. So far the claim of the petitioners that they are the bataidars and in cultivating possession of land is concerned, there is no dispute. The petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, West Champaran, Bettiah, on 23.6.1988 under Section 48-D of the Bihar Tenency Act which was registered as Batai Case No. 25 of 1998-1999. Petitioners claimed that initially the husband of Sogra Khatoon was bataidar of the land. After his death they were inducted and bataidars, since then they are cultivating the lands and sharing crops with the land holder. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Ramawati Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Mridula Mishra, J. 1. All these three writ applications arise out of common orders passed by the original Court, appellate Court and the revisional Court, as such, they are being heard and disposed of together by a common order.;2. Ramawati Devi is petitioner in C.W.J.Cs. No. 9644 of 2002 and 10193 of 2003 and Sundarwati Devi is petitioner in CWJC No. 10162 of 2002. Petitioner in all three cases are purchasers. Pre-emptor in all these three cases is Dharamnath Upadhayay, respondent No. 5 and the vendor, Mohan Upadhyay respondent No. 6, is also common in all these three writ petitions.3. In these writ applications petitioners have challenged resolution, dated 28.05.2002, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna, in Board Revision Cases No. 193, 194 and 195 of 2000, whereby order, dated 05.08.2000, passed by the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra, in Land Ceiling Appeals No. 4, 5 and 23 of 1997 as well as order, dated 13.12.1996, passed by the Deputy Collector...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Kuer (Mostt.) and anr. Vs. Basudeo Mistri and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. Defendant No. 1 and the heir of defendant No. 2 are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.5.1992, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1980/120 of 1992 (Basudeo Mistri and Ors. v. Baijnath Choubey), whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1980, passed by the learned Munsif, Motihari, East Champaran, in Title Suit No. 4 of 1976 (Basudeo Mistri and Ors. v. Baijnath Choubey), was set aside, and the suit was decreed. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. The plaintiffs case in brief is that one Sheobaran Mistri was the grand father of plaintiff No. 1 and 2. Sheobaran Mistri had two sons, namely, Bharat Mistri and-Saryug Mistri. Bharat Mistri had one son, Basdeo Mistri (plaintiff No. 1), and one daughter, Jago Devi (plaintiff No. 5). Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Jogendra Prasad and Yogendra Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner who is a Saw Mill owner has filed this application questioning the order dated 6.11.2004 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah whereunder he has refused to renew his Saw Mill licence in compliance of the instruction of the State Government contained in resolution dated 13.11.2003, Annexure-2. The petitioner has further challenged by filing I.A. No. 6415 of 2004 the order dated 20.12.2004 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70 of 2004, Annexure-7 by the District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioner in the said miscellaneous appeal on the ground that in terms of resolution of the State Government dated 13.11.2003 Annexure-2 the appellate authority namely the District Judge has not been empowered to consider and grant the interim relief. Perusal of the resolution dated 13.11.2003 indicates that thereunder St...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita Devi and ors. Vs. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha Alias Kamleshwari Pd ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants 1st set in Title Suit No. 87 of 2004, which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of their title and also for declaration that the defendants -petitioners did not acquire any title in the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 25-1-2004 executed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 (defendants 2nd set) in favour of these petitioners.2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21-12-2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna City, had rejected their petition for accepting written statement filed on their behalf in the Court below on 15-10-2004, beyond the period of ninety days as prescribed under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity).3. The short fact of this case is that the above mentioned title suit was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nagina Choudhary Vs. Vaishali Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is Assistant Manager in the Respondent-Bank. At the relevant time he was posted at Suhai Branch of Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank. For his misconduct a proceeding was initiated and a copy of charge, Annexure-1 was furnished on him. The charges levelled against him are as follows :--1. He installed a personal telephone at Suhai Branch about more than two years ago without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority in writing. This telephone was frequently used by him for his Union Activities in contacting the members and sabotaging the smooth functioning of the Management. He kept himself fully engaged for Union Activities through this Phone during working hours of the Bank and did not put his attention in recovery of the loans at Suhai Branch at all. Sri Choudhary recovered only Rs. 54 thousand in Dummy Ledgers against the target of Rs. 280 thousand for the year 2000-2001.2. He is in the habit of misbehaving with the senior officers du...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »