Patna Court June 2005 Judgments
Arun Kumar Srivastava and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16/3/2005 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ application filed by the petitioner-appellants challenging the order dated 22,5.2004 contained in Annexure-1. By the said Annexure the petitioners-appellants as well as intervenors-private respondents have been transferred and posted as Drug Inspector-cum- Licencing authority. 2. The only grievance which has been made on behalf of the appellants is that under the terms of the provision of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 read with relevant Rules and Forms, the Drug Inspector and the Licencing Authority are two different posts and in some cases the Drug Inspector has to submit a report to the Licencing Authority for taking action and as such the vesting of two powers in the same person is not permissible under the provision of the Act and the Rules.3. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the intervenors - respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no cl...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Kashim and ors. Vs. Md. Jalil and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party No. 1.2. The petitioners are intervenors-defendants of Title Suit No. 123/2002, which was filed by the opposite party 1st set for declaration of title and other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 2.4.2004, by which the learned Munsif, Madhepura rejected their petition for recall of order dated 12.3.2004 rejecting the written statement already filed by the intervenors-defendants (petitioners).4. The short fact of this case is that initially the plaintiffs-opposite party Ist set filed the suit impleading only the State of Bihar and its authorities but later when the petitioners filed intervention petition, they were added as intervenors-defendants vide order of the Court below dated 20.2.2003. It is amply clear from the impugned order that adjournments were granted by the Court below for filing written statement and finally on 12.6.2003 the learned Court b...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kumar Talwar Vs. Prakash Kumar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.2. Petitioner is the defendant in Title Eviction Suit No. 29 of 2002 which was filed by the opposite party for eviction of the defendant on various grounds.3. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25-1-2005 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Patna, struck off the defence of the defendant against his ejectment due to non-compliance of its earlier order dated 15-7-2004 passed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity.4. The principle of law is settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, reported in AIR 1985, SC 964, in which it was held that by applying the well recognised canon of construction the conclusion is unescapable that the word 'shall' used in Section 15 of the Act is directory and...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi Vs. State of Bihar Thro ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.1. These two petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 9.6.2000 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Patna in Special Case No. 5/98, whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners for their discharge have been rejected and charges have been framed for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act, against Sri Lalu Prasad, hereinafter referred to as Sri Prasad, petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 14894/2000, and under Section 109, IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, against Smt. Rabri Devi, petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 14895/2000.2. Before we deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to take note of certain relevant facts. On 19th February, 1996, the State Government in supersession of all previous Notifications issued a Notification under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Kumar Singh Vs. Raj Kishore Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No. 4) learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 (State of Bihar and its authorities) and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5 (defendant No. 3).2. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chapra, by which he rejected the petition dated 28.12.2004 of the defendant No. 4 (petitioner) for return of the plaint of Title Suit No. 207/2004 to the plaintiffs (opposite parties No. 1 and 2) for filing it afresh after compliance of the provisions of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity).3. The short fact of the case is that the suit was filed on 18.5.2004 and on that very date the Court below dispensed with the filing of notices under Section 80(1) of the Code and directed issuance of notice to the defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›