Patna Court May 2005 Judgments
Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. the Secretary-cum-commissioner, Water Reso ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-10-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a defendant in Money Suit No. 7 of 1996, which was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge-l, Supaul for realisation of certain amounts from the defendant. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.3.2000 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge I, Supaul rejected the defendant's petition for returning the plaint to the plaintiffs after holding that the suit was not maintainable at Supaul.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defendant-petitioner is a Government of India Enterprise having its office at Calcutta and its branch offices at Dhanbad and Patna. He further contends that an order was placed by the Director, Purchase and Transport, Government of Bihar to the defendant in 1973 for supply of 4,600 metric tonnes steel sheet piles, out of which 1200 metric tonnes was for Supaul as detailed i...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-10-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the notification as contained in memo dated 2.5.2003 (Annexure 1) whereby petitioner has been visited with the penalty of censure and break in service for the stipulated period. Said order further directs that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any other emoluments other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Sahar in the District of Bhojpur and for his unauthorised absence for the period 24.5.1994 to 31.7.1994 and 22.8.1994 to 26.9.1994, by order dated 27.9.1994 he was put under suspension. Later on by order dated 30th of August, 1999, the order of suspension was revoked.3. By notification dated 16.1.2002, petitioner was granted earn leave for the period 24.5.1994 to 31.7.1994 and by order dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure 7 series) he was grante...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ballabh Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-09-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 3.8.2002 (Annexure 14) whereby the order dated 30th of August, 1988, recognising the service of the petitioner as Primary School Teacher has been rescinded.2. The case as a chequered history. According to the petitioner, his case for appointment as Assistant Teacher was considered by the Governing Body of Girls Primary School, Sihaul in its meeting held on 15.9.1970 and it resolved to appoint him as Assistant Teacher on the monthly emoluments of Rs. 46/-. Petitioner was to join the service by 26.9.1970. Petitioner's date of birth is 9.12.1953, meaning thereby that on the date he was to join the service, he was less than 17 years of age.3. Girls Primary School, Sihaul (hereinafter referred to as the school) was taken over under the provisions of Non Government Elementary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act...
Tag this Judgment!Karyanand Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-06-2005
M.L. Visa, J.1. It appears that petitioner Karyanand Singh was granted bail by this Court and on 10.4.2003, a witness on behalf of prosecution was present and on call of case, one Kumar Ashok Rai, Advocate appeared and filed a petition that Senior Advocate Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh had gone to attend the shradh ceremony of his brother and he further submitted that he had no power. At the prayer of Additional Public Prosecutor, the witness was released on personal bond and, thereafter, prosecution filed a petition that accused persons of the case were threatening the witnesses. The defence was directed to file a show cause to the petition that why their bail bonds should not be cancelled. On next date, lawyer of co-accused Mukesh Das submitted that he had no instruction. The Court below, by observing that accused persons were intentionally trying not to record the evidence of witness present and they had also not filed show cause notice, cancelled the bail bonds of petitioner and took ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-04-2005
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. The question which has to be answered by this Full Bench in this case is as to whether the omnibus having seating capacity of more than five persons but below 12 is a transport vehicle (non-personalised) or not within the meaning of the amended schedule of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act). If it is a transport vehicle (non-personalised), then there is liability to pay additional tax in terms of schedule II of the Amended Schedule of the Taxation Act. If it is not a transport vehicle, then there is no liability to pay additional tax.2. This question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudarshan Sharma v. The State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 4471 of 2004, which was disposed of on 23.9.2004, reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 170, and the Division Bench of this Court held that omnibus, which means constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding driver, has to be tr...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kant Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-04-2005
V.N. Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Airport Authority of India.2. This arbitration case was filed on 26.5.2004 praying inter alia, to appoint Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the Opposite parties. It appears, parties had entered into an agreement for execution of works contract in the premises of Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna, which was, dated 2.12.2002. Clause 25 of the said agreement provides for arbitration clause in the event of dispute arising between the parties. Before the execution of the works contract could be taken up and completed, dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner under letter dated 14.4.2004, Annexure-3 requested the Member, Planning of the Airport Authority of India to refer the dispute to the named Arbitrator. While request of the petitioner to refer the dispute to the named Arbitrator remained pending with the Airport Authority of India, petitioner rece...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-04-2005
V.N. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri S.N.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeshwar Prasad, G.P. 6 for the State of Bihar and its functionaries, State Election Commission and its functionaries and private Respondents, who have filed their counter affidavit.2. By the impugned order dated 3.9.2002, Annexure-1, the preliminary objection of the Return Candidate that the election petition filed under Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 without impleading all the contesting candidates is not maintainable, has been overruled.3. Petitioner assails the said order on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to law as has been laid down by this Court in the Case of Md. Zakir Hussain v. Hareshwar Prasad Singh and Ors., reported in 2002 (1) BLJR 103, whereunder his Lordship, while considering the similar situation, has held as follows : 'True it is that; the general law says that the plaintiff is dominus-lit is and is entitled to join the party of his own choice but th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-04-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 26th July 2003 (Annexure-4), whereby it has been directed that for the purpose of time bound promotion the date on which the petitioner had acquired the graduate trained qualification shall be reckoned. Petitioner's prayer is for grant of time bound promotion taking into account the date of his joining as Assistant Teacher on 19.10.1969.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and joined as such on 19.10.1969. Petitioner at the time of his joining possessed the qualifications of Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts which examinations he passed in the year 1962 and 1964 respectively. Taking into account his date of joining as 19.10.1969 he was given the benefit of first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981. The grant of first time bound promotion was found to be irregular in the adult report an...
Tag this Judgment!Gopali Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-04-2005
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we allow the limitation petition. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.3. The appellant is the bataidar. He filed an application, being an under raiyat, under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging ejectment at the instance of the landlord. The proceeding was sent to the Board constituted under Section 48 E of the Act. However, the Collector withdrew the proceeding from the Board under Section 48E (10) of the Act, and allowed the parties to lead evidence and after hearing the parties allowed the claim of the appellant. The landlord filed an appeal under Section 48F of the Act, which has been disposed of by the Additional Collector.4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two points which were raised by him before the learned Single Judge. The first point is that no appeal is maintainable against an order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nagina Sangahi Vs. Rajpati Sangahi
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-03-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is defendant of Title Suit No. 7 of 2001 which was filed by the sole opposite party for partition of his moiety share.3. This revision is directed against the order dated 8.12.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned sub-ordinate Judge-1, Naugachia, rejected the defendant's petition filed under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) claiming that the suit was barred by the principle of res-judicata.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order claiming that earlier plaintiff-opposite party had himself filed a suit for partition bearing Title Suit No. 191 of 1980 against the same person which was dismissed for default in the year 1994 whereafter he filed Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 for restoration of the said Title Suit, but the said Misc. Case was also dismissed in the year 2000.5. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »