Patna Court August 2005 Judgments

Nawalesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2006(3)BLJR2163

1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in annexure 6, issued vide memo No. 6762 (S) dated 26.9.2001, whereby and whereunder certain punishments have been inflicted upon the petitioner on conclusion of a departmental proceeding.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the event of the year 1996-97 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for the charges that the petitioner, who had supervised the work of construction of a bridge, which had collapsed in the year of construction itself it is also submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension and the inquiry proceeded against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his final report exonerating the petitioner from the charges on the grounds, inter alia, that during the period of construction of the bridge, the petitioner was not posted at Jehanabad, rather he was transferred to Chakradharpur with effect from 10.8.1996....

Mrs. Farhat Hasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this writ petition, by invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the initiation of the proceedings and further resultant impugned reassessment order, in terms of the provisions of Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), recorded on March 31, 2005, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-4, Patna, of the Income-tax Department, in relation to the assessment for the year 1997-98 against the petitioner, who carries on the work of running a school known as 'International School' in New Patliputra Colony, at Patna, mainly, on the one premise, that the grounds stated in the impugned reassessment order under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction, and in the result, the following short question comes to surface for our consideration and adjudication in this writ petition;Whether initiation and subsequent completion of the impugned...

Manohar Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

M.L. Visa, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite party No. 2 and learned APR2. In a case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to make payment of Rs. 81,72,000/- in OTS Scheme but they are not in a position to pay this amount in one lumpsum and can pay it in quarterly instalments, and the first instalment will be of Rs. 5/- lacs and thereafter every quarterly instalment will be of Rs. 10/-lacs and within a period of two years from the date of the payment of 1st Instalment petitioner will clear the entire aforesaid amount by increasing some last instalments or last instalment. It is further submitted that for payment of 1st instalment three months time be granted.3. Learned counsel for the informant accepts the aforesaid proposal but submits that time for payment of 1st instalment till 15th October, 2005 may be granted. This proposal is accepted by the learned counsel for th...

Hira Lal Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is on account of non-filling up the available vacancy of reserved category meant for reserved candidates in the rank of Superintending Engineer and above.2. It is not in dispute that the vacancies are available.3. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents-State and its officials. In paragraph 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit it is stated that the department had again sought roster clearance for the post of Superintending Engineer from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, which has been obtained and after finalisation of gradation list further steps in the matter will be taken immediately.4. Today, a second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, in paragraph 6 of which it is stated by the Secretary, who has sworn the said affidavit, that at least six mon...

Kameshwar Mahto and Pandey Umesh Bihari Verma Vs. State of Bihar and o ...

Court: Patna

v Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. Petitioners in both the writ applications are the employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and they are aggrieved by the action of the Corporation in retiring them at the age of 58 years and their prayer is to quash the orders by which they have been asked to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Their further prayer is to direct the respondent Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, to continue them in service till they attain the age of 60 years.2. Kameshwar Mahto, petitioner in CWJC No. 8579 of 2005 has averred that he was initially appointed by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation to the post of Assistant Godown Manager on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission whereas Pandey Umesh Bihari Verma, petitioner in CWJC No. 6861 of 2005 was initially appointed on the post of Salesman. The State Government in the departm...

Arjun Prasad No. 2 Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as well as the Accountant General.2. The petitioner was appointed as Jansewak under the Project Executive Officer, Murliganj on 26.11.1969. He passed Hindi noting and drafting examination, on 30.7.1972. He was given first time bound promotion on 1.4.1981 and 2nd time bound promotion was not given to the petitioner which is due since 26.11.1994. He retired from service on 28.2.2001 from Block Office, Saharsa as Jansewak. Petitioner's case is that he represented the matter regarding the second time bound promotion. The Deputy Collector (Establishment) issued a letter vide Letter No. 46-2 dated 29.2.2000 to the Block Development Officer, Saharsa regarding 2nd time bound promotion and also asked to send the appointment letter as well as the letter of 1st time bound promotion to the petitioner.3. Petitioner's case is that despite the letter of recommendation nothing was done and he was not given second time bound promoti...

Arun Kumar Vs. Mohan Prasad

Court: Patna

S. Nayer Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is defendant of Title Partition Suit No. 488 of 1992 which was filed by the Opposite party for partition of the suit properties. In the said suit a compromise petition was filed by both the parties whereafter a compromise decree was prepared on 5.3.1993 and a Final Decree was also prepared on 27.9.1994. Thereafter, on 28.11.1996 the defendant-petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 123 of 1996 for setting aside the compromise decree claiming it to be on the basis pf fraudulent compromise petition.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.3.1999 passed in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Patna, dismissed the Miscellaneous Case on the petition filed by the plaintiff Opposite party.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his signature on the compromise petition was. fraudulently taken by the opposite party who is his full brother twelve years older t...

Sanjay Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. The hearing of this appeal was taken up along with another analogous appeal, against the same judgment and order filed at the instance of one Umesh Pandit. After hearing had gone on for some time it was stated before the Court that Umesh Pandit was dead. Hence, the appeal filed on his behalf (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2002) was adjourned for the counsel to file a proper petition stating about his death and the Court proceeded with the hearing of this appeal.2. The single appellant Sanjay Singh stands convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and seven years for causing explosion by throwing a bomb. The two sentences were directed by the trial Court to run concurrently.3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the statement of one Ram Babu Singh (PW 8, brother of the deceased) recorded as fardbeyan by the Officer-Incharge of ...

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Prabha and ors.

Court: Patna

R.N. Prasad, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by Subordinate Judge X, Patna in Title Suit No. 296 of 1998 whereby the petitioner's prayer to refer the dispute forarbitration has been rejected.2. Title Suit No. 296 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties-1st set for declaration that the reconstituted partnership deed dated 17.2.1992 effective from 1.4.1992 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and without the desire and intention to retire from the partnership of Babu Rajendra Prasad Singh and it be declared that the plaintiffs being heirs of Babu Rajendra Prasad Singh be deemed to be continuing as partners to the extent of the share of Babu Rajendra Prasad Singh.3. Summons were issued to the defendants in the said suit, Defendant No. 2 appeared in the suit and filed written statement. Defendant No. 3 who is petitioner in this civil revision also appeared in the suit and before filing written statement fil...

State Bank of India Vs. Kishore Kumar Sah

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC) the challenge at the instance of the petitioner- State Bank of India has been against the order of the trial Court recorded on 15-7-2003 in Title Suit No. 142 of 2003 at the instance of the borrower, whereby, the petition for cancellation of the recovery of the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in purported exercise of powers contained in Section 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the competent authority against the borrower-opposite party herein, came to be accepted mainly on the plea of fraud.2. After having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bank and considering the relevant legal settings and the mechanism employed in the Act, it is evidently clear that the impugned order of the trial Court is unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Act for the...