Patna Court July 2005 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sayade Bibi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. I.A. No. 1499 of 2004 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of this civil revision. From the statements made in this application I am satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and interlocutory application is allowed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd., which was opposite party No. 2 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 15 of 2001 filed by the opposite parties of this civil revision confining it under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) for payment of compensation on structured formula basis due to the death of Ish Mohammad, husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of minor opposite party No. 2 caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck owned by opposite party No. 5 and driven by his driver.3. The revision-petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Lal Jhangar and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanta Chakravarty
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Petitioners are defendants of Title Suit No. 12 of 2002. which was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaration of her title and restoration of her possession over the suit properties from which she claimed to have been dispossessed on 16-9-2001.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 19-8-2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Gaya rejected their petitioner for recall of its earlier order dated 2-3-2004 debarring them from filing their written statement and for accepting the written statement filed by them.3. The short facts of this case are that the suit was filed by the sole opposite party in the year 2002, whereafter notices were issued to the defendants and on 24-6-2002 the summons were said to have been served upon them. The defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit on 7-11-2003 claiming that they learned about the suit just before it and had no earlier knowledge. However, when more than three months ...
Tag this Judgment!Nalani Kumar Jha and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders contained in memo No. 211 dated 10.1.2003, Annexure-5 memo No. 1991 dated 12.12.2002, Annexure-6 and memo No. 654 dated 24.3.2001, Annexure-7 issued under the signature of Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, respondent No. 3, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated.2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on the post of Amin on 22.11.1989 by Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi Annexure-1; petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the post of Treasure Guard on 12.9.1989 by Land Acquisition Officer, Chatiyama, Annexure-2; and petitioner No. 3 was appointed on the post of Amin on 21.11.1989 by Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, Annexure-3 purely on temporary basis with a condition that their services shall be terminated without any notice. Their appointments were approved by the Director, Land Acquisition...
Tag this Judgment!Baidya Nath Dubey Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Dr. M.P. Shukla for the petitioner, Mr. Navendu Kumar, JC to Standing Counsel No. VI, and Mr. Ajay Tripathi for the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government as a Class III employee on 14.11.1962, and superannuated with effect from 31.7.2001, while functioning as an Upper Division Clerk from the office of the Employment Exchange, Oarbhanga. He was implicated in criminal case at his village home wherein allegations were levelled against him, inter alia, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was taken into custody from 25.9.1986 to 1.10.1986. He was under suspension for the period 25.9.1986 to 2.5.1996. He was convicted by the trial Court, inter alia, under Section 307, IPC. The petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1986 (Baidya Nath Dubey v. State of Bihar, which was disposed of by the judgment dated 8.5.1996 (Annexure 6) of a Division Bench of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Jichcha Singh @ Dhichha Singh Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant Jichcha Singh @ Dhichha Singh stands convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 27, Arms Act. He was sentenced by the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and on default in payment of fine one year's imprisonment for the offence of murder and rigorous imprisonment for three years for committing the offence with a fire-arm. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. Both as an accused under-trial and an appellant before this Court, he was denied bail and consequently, he remains in jail now for about ten years.2. The case arose from an occurrence in which three sons of the informant Ram Lakhan Singh (PW 7) were killed by gun-shots. According to the prosecution, Ram Ratan Singh was first shot down by the appellant. Followed by Brijnandan Singh and Ramanugrah Singh being shot by two other accused, namely, Sanjiv Singh and Niranjan Singh. Hence, in the beginning, besides the appellant, there...
Tag this Judgment!Yadu Yadav @ Yadu Gope and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 4.8.2004 and order dated 6.8.2004 passed by Shri Md. Nasimuddin, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa in Sessions Trial No. 480 of 1994. All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149, IPC. Except appellant Yadu Gope other three appellants have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecution party and the defence party are close relatives amongst themselves. Accused Bhagwan Das is own uncle of the informant and the deceased. They had land dispute since long. On 6.4.1993, the informant Sidheshwar Gope (PW 5) alongwith his father Chamru Gope (PW 2) and the younger brother the deceased Yogeshwar Gope was in his 'khalihan' and were doing work of 'osauni'. At about ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kamdeo Kuwar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Gandhi for the petitioner, and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No. 1 for the respondents.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.1.1996, while posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Shiromani Tola, Parbatta south, Khagaria. The petitioner complains before this Court that the differential amount of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 deposited in the petitioner's provident fund account under a general policy decision of the State Government has not till date been paid. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition.3. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the petitioner has joined the Primary School, Temtha, way back in 1954 as a school teacher. It was a privately managed school gove...
Tag this Judgment!Mostt. Manorama Devi Vs. Administrator, Water Board Gaya
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das for the petitioner, and Mr. Raghunandan Prasad for the respondent.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner's late husband (Akhouri Govind Kumar) was in the services of the respondent and died in harness on 2.9.1993, while posted as Supervisor in the Water Board, Gaya. The petitioner complains before this Court that she has been allowed the benefit of family pension upto five years after the death of her husband. The Writ petition has therefore, been preferred for a direction to the respondents to allow the benefit of family pension till her death. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition.3. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Bihar Municipal Corporation (Amendment Act 1982) (Bihar Act 52 of 1982), the Governor of Bihar issued S.O. No. 1390, dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Pd. Sharma and ors. Vs. Mani Bhusan Sharma and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Petitioners are plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 371 of 1973 which they had filed for partition of their moiety share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs.2. The said suit was decreed on contest on 26-7-1976 and a Preliminary decree of partition of the plaintiffs' moiety share was drawn. Against the said decree the defendants-opposite parties preferred First Appeal No. 775 of 1976, but subsequently the said First Appeal was withdrawn. It further transpires that proceeding for preparation of Final Decree was initiated in the year 1976 whereafter a compromise petition dated 1 -3-1977 was filed in the suit by both the parties but after more than two years Plaintiff No. 2 filed an objection to which the defendants filed their rejoinder on 31-7-1979. Subsequently, on 10-9-1979 the learned Court below rejected the plaintiffs' objection to the compromise petition and accepted the compromise directing for preparation of Final Decree.3. Against the said order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Most. Manju Devi Vs. Ramjee Singh @ Bhuttu Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 9.7.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge I, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 162/2001 whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff- opposite party filed the above mentioned suit against the defendant stating inter alia therein that there was an amicable private oral partition between the parties and accordingly prayed for relief for declaration of title over schedule IV land, recovery of possession, for a direction to the defendants to vacate the suit premises and decree of mesne profit etc. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and filed written statement stating inter alia.therein that Deo Narayan Singh being the eldest brother got Jethans in the said private partition. After filing of the written statement, the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application for amendment of the plaint unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »