Patna Court August 2005 Judgments
Nevilal Rohita Construction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. Heard Dr. Sadanand Jha for the petitioner, and Mr. K.K. Mandal, learned Govt. Pleader No. IV, for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18-5-2005 (Annexure-23), passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, whereby he has disposed of the petitioner's representation in pursuance of this Court's order on the previous writ petition, and has in substance refused to extend the time for execution of the contract in question.2. The basic facts needed for the disposal of this writ petition are not in controversy. The petitioner entered into a contract with the State Government which was signed on 21-5-2004 for 'Repair and blacktopping of W.F.E. cum Road from 15.00 km. to 23.00 km.' at an estimated cost of Rs. 150.00 lacs. The same was on behalf of the State Government executed by respondent No. 6 (the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, West Embankment Division, Kunauli, Birpur). The agreement, inter alia, ...
Tag this Judgment!Laldhari Mistri and ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the appellate Court in Misce. Appeal No. 1 of 2002 dated 29.5.2004, an appeal against the order of the trial Court dated 11.12.2001 in Miscellaneous case No. 16 of 1994 arising out of an ex parte order and judgment dated 9.6.1987 passed in Title suit No. 14 of 1986, by invocation of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code').2. The learned counsels for the parties are heard. The impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are perused especially along with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code pertaining to the powers of revision as well as Order IX Rule 13 of the Code along with the second proviso.3. The following dates are self eloquent:-DATE FACTS 9.6.1987 Suit for specific performance of contract to sell, against Hira Mistri, bearing T.S. No. 14 of 1986 was decreed ex parte 19.12.1987 Rest money was deposited by the...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh Vs. Birendra Prasad Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is defendant of Partition Suit No. 563 of 1993, which was filed by the opposite party for his moiety share in the ancestral properties as both the parties were brothers.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 12.4.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which learned Subordinate Judge- XII, Patna, rejected the petition filed by the defendant (petitioner) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) for correction of order dated 23.9.2003 by which learned Court below had held that it had no objection and the defendant is at liberty to withdraw his counter-claim if he thinks that the counterclaim is defective, but the Court is unable to accord any per-mission to file fresh claim for partition or to bring a fresh suit with respect to counter-claim, which in its opinion, will amount to multiplicity of suits and will cast an impediment in the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Shankar Chaudhary Vs. Special Officer Now President Bihar State B ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
S. Nayer Hussain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 370 of 1989 which was filed by Sarva (sic) Mangala Devi Trust (herinafter refered in as the Trust for the sake of brevity), though its Managing Trustee Prem Shankar Chaudhary after serving notice under Section 28 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity), against the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust thereinafter referred to as the Board' for the sake of brevity) and its Special Officer (opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2) for declaration that the Trust is a private trust and is not a public charitable trust and the Board or its authorities had no jurisdiction to exercise superintendence or control over the Trust or to Interfere with the management and administration thereof as the provisions of the Act had no application to private trusts.2. The plaintiff petitioner in aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4-7-2000...
Tag this Judgment!Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Barin Ghosh, J. 1. The principal dispute was as to the area of the flat. This dispute has now been sorted out by an Architect of repute, who has submitted his report, which has been accepted by the parties. In terms of the said report; it appears that the area of the flat in question is 1550 sq. ft. The parties have accepted that the area of the flat in question is 1550 sq. ft.2. It appears that the petitioner was interested in a smaller flat and applied for allotment of a smaller flat. Subsequently, he made a request to change his allotment for a bigger flat, and accordingly on 27th November, 2002, the flat in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner and he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 8,69,857/- on or before 31st December, 2002. The principal contention of the petitioner since 2002 had been that the calculation of the price as on 27th November, 2002 was incorrect inasmuch as the flat was a smaller flat than proposed to be allotted, and accordingly for a smaller flat, the B...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, as contained in annexure 7 dated 9.8.2002, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Mistri to the post of Kamdar.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 1, the case of the petitioner was examined by the authorities and finding him eligible for the post of Mistri, he was promoted on the post of Mistri vide order as contained in annexure 1/A, issued vide memo No. 219 dated 5th February, 1997. The petitioner continued on the post and all of a sudden, a show-cause notice was given to him as, contained in annexure 5 dated 27.2.2002 as to why the promotion granted to him on the post of Mistri may not be cancelled. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice and thereafter order impugned was passed. It is also submitted that the petitioner since was having the requisite...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudeo Choudhary @ Bhudeo and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2002 passed by Mr. Gopal Krishna Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, IXth, Munger in Sessions Case. No. 55 of 1992/Tr. No. 25 of 2002 whereby and whereunder appellant No. 2, Inderdeo Choudhary @ Indradeo Prasad Choudhary was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A, IPC and appellant No. 1, Bhudeo Choudhary @ Bhudeo Kumar Choudhary was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A, IPC and sentences against both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. It also appears that other co-accused Lata Kumari, Paro Kumari and Gauri Kumari were tried along with the appellants and held guilty were not awarded any substantive sentence and released taking into considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Prameshwar Prasad Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 3.2.2004 passed in CWJC No. 1418 of 2004, whereby the Opposite parties were directed to comply the general direction of this Court dated 19.9.2003 passed in CWJC No. 7054 of 2003 and analogous cases with only modification that two paragraphs affidavit personally sworn by the concerned authority must be filed by 22nd March, 2004.2. Petitioner 'had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1418 of 2004 for directing the respondents to make payment of his gratuity amount of Rs. 1,89,813/- and the amount of leave encashment Rs. 73,000/-, which was disposed of along with other analogous-cases vide order dated 3.2.2004 in terms of the directions of this Court dated 19.9.2003 passed in CWJC No. 7054 of 2003 and analogous cases.3. Petitioner retired from the services of the Bihar State Small Indu...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Bihari Srivastava and ors. and Virendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned orders the petitioners have been terminated from the posts of Personal Assistants and Reporters respectively from the office of Bihar Legislative Assembly.3. According to the cases of the petitioners, the posts of personal Assistants since had fallen vacant in the office of the Bihar Legislative Assembly the same were advertised on the notice board pursuant to which several persons including the writ petitioners of CWJC No. 6803 of 1999 applied for. After the scrutiny of the application forms, a competitive test was held. The petitioners having been found successful and eligible, were appointed in the year 1991 and thereafter they continued on the post aforesaid.4. Some posts of Reporters were also advertised on the notice board and in the portico of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The petitioners of CWJC Nos. 6401 of 1999 and 7059 of 1999 and others. applied for the same. A competitive test was held on 24.1.1994 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Mostt. Manju Kumari Sharma and ors. Vs. Bhupendra NaraIn Singh and ors ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
M.L. Visa, J.1. Respondent No. 1 has filed this application for taking legal action against appellant No. 1 Manju Kumari Sharma and her two sons, namely, appellant No. 2 Sarvesh Kumar Trivedi and appellant No. 3 Abhishek Kumar Trivedi under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code (In short 'CPC') for violation of order dated 2.4.1991 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 102 of 1991. Counsel of respondent No. 1 submits that appellants have filed first appeal No. 102 of 1991 against the judgment and final decree passed in Partition Suit No. 1 of 1982 against the judgment dated 28.2.1990 and decree dated 14.12.1990 and 30.1.1991 by Subordinate Judge IV, Saran at Chapra. According to him, as per the judgment and decree, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is entitled to vacate the defendants-appellants by making payment of consideration money to the contesting defendants-appellants and in the decree, it was directed that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 will make payment of the consi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »