Patna Court August 2005 Judgments
Umesh Roy and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Nagendra Rai, J.1. These petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur in G.R. No. 946 of 2000 taking cognizance under Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 380, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 Arms Act against the petitioners and others.2. The facual profile of the case is that Ram Chandra Rai, resident of village Chihatar, P.S. Maner, District-Patna lodged fardbeyan on 27.6.2000 at 9.30 a.m. before the S.I. of Pirbahore Police Station alleging inter alia that on the preceding day on 26.6.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. he along with his deceased son Buddhi Yadav was returning to his village home from Maner Bazar and when he reached near Maner Tola, 17 accused persons including these six petitioners, namely Umesh Roy, Ram Prit Roy @ Ram Krit Roy, Modi Roy, Vikram Roy, Kamlesh Roy and Baban Roy came there armed with lathi, danda and pistol and caught hold of his deceased son Buddhi Rai and accused Hridya Roy fired at him ca...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Shah and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Barin Ghosh, J.1. This writ petition is by nine writ petitioners. All of them sought issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificates in their favour. Each one of them contended that he belongs to Gond community. There is no dispute that the community known as 'Gond' is a Scheduled Tribe community. There is also no dispute that the communities known as 'Goad' or 'Goud' and 'Gonr' or 'Gour' do not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. An attempt made by the State of Bihar to treat them equally has been struck down by the Central Government and the said decision of the Central Government has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court.2. In Hindi these communities are spelt as (sic) Each of the petitioners contended before the authorities concerned that it would be evidenced from the title deeds of ancient time obtained by their fathers or grand fathers that the father or the grand father of each of the petitioners belong to 'Gond' community.3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Sumit An...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Nazfi Alias Rashid Najfi Vs. ShahIn Gulab
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 25-2-2005 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 56(M) of 2003 whereby interim maintenance has been allowed to the opposite party.2. The opposite party filed the above-mentioned maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that she was married to the petitioner on 22-4-2000 and she is his legally married wife. She was mentally and physically tortured on the ground of demand of dowry. The petitioner is not ready to live with her as husband-wife and is trying to marry again and as such she has been compelled to reside with her sister at Alamganj, Patna City and she has no means for her maintenance. The petitioner is an Engineer earning Rs. 28.000/- per. month and as such, prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month and also Rs. 40,000/- as legal expenses.3. Notice was issued to the petitioner b...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubans Mani and ors. Vs. Mahabir Babu Marwari and anr., Shree Lalje ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
S. Nayer Hussain, J. 1. All these three revisions have been filed by the same petitioner who was plaintiff of three suits, namely, Money Suit No. 3 of 1980, Money Suit No. 4 of 1980 and Money Suit No. 5 of 1980, all of which were fiied for realisation of arrears of rent from three tenants who were impleaded in three suits as defendants separately. In the said circumstances, all these three revisions have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment.2. These revisions have been filed against three separate orders of the same date i.e., 26.3.1990 in the said three suits by which the learned Additional Munsif-V, Siwan, allowed the intervention petition of Lakshman Prasad in all the three suits. The said Lakshman Prasad is Opposite Party No. 2 in all these three revisions. During the pendency of these revisions the sole plaintiff-petitioner died and her heirs, namely, her husband, sons and daughters have already been substituted in her place.3. The learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Devi and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Barin Ghosh, J.1. A requisition was submitted to the petitioner, who was the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. The requisitionists requested the petitioner to convene a meeting to remove the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and also to remove the Up-Pramukh. The petitioner did not issued the notice convening such meeting. The requisitionists then approached the Executive Officer who convened such a meeting. The first ground of challenge of holding of this meeting pursuant to the said notice is that the reasons for the motion had not been indicated in the notice.2. It is true, as will appear from a bare perusal of the notice, that the reasons in support of the motion had not been indicated in the notice. The notice also does not say that a copy of the requisition is being annexed with the notice. Therefore, It is true that the notice did not convey the reasons. It appears to be the legislative mandate that such reasons must accompany the notice. However, the petitioners cannot defea...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Kumar Chourasiya Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Barin Ghosh, J.1. On 7th May, 2004, 10 out of 19 elected members submitted a requisition with the petitioner for removal of the petitioner from the post of Pramukh and also for removal of the Up-Pramukh. The petitioner did not convene such a meeting. On 8th June, 2004, the requisitionists approached the Executive Officer with a request to convene a meeting in pursuance with the said requisition submitted with the petitioner on 7th May, 2004. In the meantime, on 3rd June, 2005, 14 out of 19 members requested the petitioner to convene a meeting to remove him from the post of Pramukh. In this requisition there was no request to hold a meeting for the purpose of removal of the Up-Pramukh. The petitioner again did not convene a meeting, as was requested on 3rd June, 2005. On 27th June, 2005, the Up-Pramukh directed the Executive Officer to issue a notice convening a meeting to consider the motion of removal of the petitioner from the post of Pramukh, as was requested by the requisitionist...
Tag this Judgment!Mantu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
V.N. Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Gorporation and the private Respondent.2. The petitioner, who applied for allotment of transportation contract in the District of Nalanda by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), pursuant to tender notice dated 14.3.2005 issued under the signature of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, as contained in Annexure-1 to this application and became unsuccessful as the said contract was awarded to private respondent No. 6 in the meeting dated 3.5.2005 of the Headquarter Transport Committee of the Corporation, which is contained in Annexure-E of to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, came to this Court asserting that the offer made by him in terms of Clause (2) of the tender notice that he shall be transporting the goods of the Corporation at a rate which is 14.81% less than the ceiling rate, fixed for the district has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Chandra Shekhar Kahar and anr., Vs. State of B ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Rekha Kumari, J. 1. The aboveJthree appeals are directed against the same judgment dated 22.8.2001 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Rateriya, 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S. Tr. No. 205 of 1991 by which he has convicted all the appellants under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code for gang rape and under Sections 323 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code and against the order dated 27.8.2001 by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has sentenced all the appellants to undergo RI for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each to be paid to the victims as compensation for the offence committed under Section 376(2), IPC and Rl for six months under Section 323, IPC and Rl for six months under Section 451, IPC with the direction that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.2. As all the above appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeo Kahar and anr. and Upendra Kahar Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and order passed by the trial Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2002 there are two appellants. Each of them was convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and on default in payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Appellant No. 1 was also convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Similarly appellant No. 2 was additionally convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous, imprisonment for one year. In the analogous Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2002 there is only one appellant who was convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 27, Arms Act. For committing the offence of murder he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on default in payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Thakur Radha Krishna Jee and ors. Vs. Rabi Shankar Pandey and an ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
S. Nayer Hussain, J. 1. Petitioners were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 177 of 1992 which they filed for declaration that late Harihar Pandey never adopted Defendant No. 1 (O.P. No. 1) and also to declare that the plaintiffs were sebaits of the deities. The said suit was dismissed on 31.7.1996 due to default after rejecting thee plaintiffs, petition for adjournment. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1996 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order IX, Rule 9, CPC for restoration of the aforesaid suit, but the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Sasaram, rejected the said Miscellaneous Case by order dated 4.7.1997. Against the said order the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 43 of 1997 which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, on merits on 16.3.1999 which is under challenge in this Civil Revision.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenged the aforesaid orders passed in the Miscellaneous Case as well as in the Miscellaneous Appeal su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »