Patna Court July 2005 Judgments
State of Bihar Vs. Binod Kewat and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, J. 1. The death reference was heard alongwith Cr. Appeal preferred by all the eight convicts/appellants. The Court below has convicted appellant Binod Kewat under Section 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, and has awarded death sentence. No separate sentence under Arms Act, has been passed against him. Rest seven appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC, and have been awarded sentence for life. Appellant Mahendra Kewat has also been found guilty under Section 27 Arms Act. However, no separate sentence has been awarded to him for that offence.2. The prosecution story is very short and most of the facts are not under dispute. There was a piece of land in village Tetradh Bangla, PS Akorhigola Sasaram bearing Plot No. 1131-1134 appertaining to Khata No. 204 over which at the relevant time there was paddy crops. Both parties were laying claim over the said land as a result of which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC was initiated. Against which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Naresh Mishra and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Shashank Kumar Singh, J.1. All the 16 (sixteen) writ applications were heard together as the petitioners are teaching and/or non-teaching staff of project schools which were taken over and subsequently services of those teachers and non-teaching staff regularised, now were being terminated or already terminated.2. Contention on behalf of the petitioners is that a decision was taken to terminate the services of all teaching staff in all such project schools though the non-teaching staff have been allowed to continue. The consequential orders in some of the cases have not been passed which according to learned counsel for the petitioners have now been passed though in the order of Director, Secondary Education, Bihar which have been appended a decision regarding removal of all of them have been taken.3. Petitioners in this regard have relied on letter No. 1115 dated 27.5.1981 issued under the signature of Mr. Vijay Shankar Dubey, the then Director, Secondary Education cum Special Secret...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Ghosh @ Deepak Ghosh and anr. Vs. Smt. Meeta Ghosh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned counsel for the State.2. The petitioners are plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 209 of 1995, which they had filled for declaration that the sale deed dated 14.5.1987 said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant was fraudulent, void, illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction etc.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2003 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Bhagalpur rejected the plaintiffs petition dated 25.11.2002 calling for the Thumb Impression Register from the Sub-Registrar, Bhagalpur and also for drawing a contempt proceeding against him as he did not comply the earlier order of the Court and submitted exclusive report that the register was missing.4. When it came to the notice of this Court that the Sub-Registrar had submitted a report...
Tag this Judgment!Raka Sahay Vs. Magadh University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner obtained admission to the course of Master of Business Administration in L.N. Mithila Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') for the session 1991-93. She was prior thereto student of the Patna University, and was required to submit her migration certificate with the present Institute at the time of admission. It is further stated in the writ petition that she was unable to submit her migration certificate because of the on going strike in the Patna University. In view of her undertaking to submit the same soon after the strike was called off, the petitioner was provisionally admitted. She thereafter submitted the migration certificate and the prescribed fee. The examination took place in October, 1993, and provisional mark sheet was issued to her on 15.1.2001 (Annexure 3), but mark sheet and the certificate in original ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Pandey Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Rekha Kumari, J. 1. The appellant faced trial for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned lower Court found him guilty under Section 376, IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years.2. The prosecution version as unfolded in trial is as follows : The informant Chameli Devi on 28.11.1987 at 3.00 p.m. had gone to cut out grass near river Durgawati accompanied by Shiv Chand Mushar and Santra Kumari, brother-in-law and the sister-in-law respectively. It is further said that suddenly the appellant Bhola Pandey reached there and cought hold of her and then pushed her down on the ground and committed rape on her. In Course of this incident her blouse were torn and her petticoat was stained with semen of the appellant. She went to her house and narrated about the incident to her mother-in-law and the husband.3. The fard beyan of the informant was recorded at Chenari Police Station on the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Arbind Krishna @ Uday Krishna Vs. Ramdulari Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was defendant-Judgement debtor in partition suit No. 7 of 1945 which was originally filed by the predecessor of opposite party Nos. 1 to 11 for partition of their eight annas five daam share in the suit property. The said suit was decreed and Preliminary decree was prepared to the extent of the share claimed by the plaintiff, but the said Preliminary decree was never challenged by any one and it attained finality. Thereafter, Final decree was prepared by the trial Court in the year 1949 against which First Appeal No. 186 of 1949 was filed by the defendant-Judgment debtor which was allowed with certain modification and directions. Against the said Judgment and decree of this Court Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 1964 was filed and the same was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 6.2.1967 by which the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to take fresh steps for preparation of the Final Decree.3. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Folix Ekka Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-03-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though he was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of an orderly peon by virtue of order, as contained in annexure-1 dated 15.11.1996 and he continued to work on that post, he has not been paid his salary from the very beginning. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that he is not being allowed to perform his duties from January 2001.3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of orderly peon by virtue of order, as contained in annexure-1 dated 15.11.1996 and thereafter he joined the post on 30th November, 1996 under respondent No. 6 and he continued to work there but his salary was not paid. The matter thereafter was examined by respondent No. 8 and he recommended for payment of due salary to the petitioner vide annexure-2 dated 30th August, 1997, but still his salary was not paid and now he ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahman Mian and ors. Vs. Reyazul Ansari and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners are defendants of Title Suit No. 93 of 1999 which was filed by opposite parties 1-3 for declaration of their title and recovery of possession and also challenging the entries in revisional survey Khatian and for other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 4.12.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Sitamarhi, allowed the plaintiffs' petition for amendment of the plaint of their aforementioned suit.4. The facts of this case. In short, are that the suit was filed in the year 1999 whereafter the defendants-petitioners appeared and filed their written statement on 22.12.2000 after serving a copy of the same on the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Much thereafter on 21.4.2004 the plaintiffs filed a petition (Annexure-1) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the plaint by way of adding a few statements and relief for canc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›