Patna Court September 2005 Judgments
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal @ Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the version of the girl Kumari Puja, who is present in Court, brought by the family of the parents.2. Kumari Puja is adult and a student prosecuting her studies. Having already passed B.A. Part I examination, she wants to prosecute her further studies. The parents of the girl are also present.3. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal is also present, but his parents are not present. He has been working as Manager of a firm, namely, Pragati Enterprises, Samastipur. The parents of the girl, Kumari Puja, are residing near that office of the petitioner. Kumari Puja has mentioned in our presence, in open Court, that the petitioner is not her husband and she has not entered into any matrimony. She has also stated before us that no child has been delivered by her, so, there is no question of there being any child out of any relationship with the petitioner and herself.4. In the light of the entire conspectus of the facts and t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Renu Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. This writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure-20), passed by the Government of Bihar in purported exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, whereby the petitioner's pension to the extent of 25% per month has been reduced, the entire amount of gratuity has been forfeited, and a sum of Rs. 11,63,549.18 p. has been directed to be recovered from him for the losses caused to the State Government. It is further directed against the consequential order dated 22.3.2002 (Annexure-22) for recovery of the said amount of gratuity. The writ petition is also directed against the order dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure-23), which seeks to substitute the said orders dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure-20), and 22.3.2002 (Annexure-22), the cumulative effect of which is that apart from the said punishment of reduction of pension and forfeiture of the amount of gratuity, the amount of recovery for the losses caused to the Government has been su...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. Chitragupta Pd. and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
J.N. Bhatt, CJ. and Shashank Kr. Singh, J.1. In this letters patent appeal, the challenge is against the judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 222 of 1980, dated 11th December, 1987, whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree, dated 22.12.1979, passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No. 43 of 1973/1 of 1979 came to be set aside.2. The limited question, which requires to be considered in this appeal, is as to whether the views and the ultimate conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is, in any way, erroneous, unjustified or perverse, requiring our interference in exercise of the appellate powers under Clause 10 of the letters patent of the Patna High Court Rules.3. The factual profile is elaborately articulated in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, therefore, it may not be necessary for us to reiterate the same. However, be it mentioned that the suit came to be filed for declaration, by the original plaintiff, who was 'shebait' in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Mostt. Sona Devi and ors. Vs. Balindra Rai and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1990 passed by Sri J. P. Paul, 3rd Additional District Judge, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 135 of 1985 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1985 passed by Sri Arun Prabhat Sinha , Additional Munsif, Siwan in Title Suit No. 53/73.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs appellants had filed Title Suit No. 53/73 for redemption of two zerpeshgi deeds dated 6-7-1926 and 7-3-1930 executed by Mostt. Badla Kuer in favour of Saryu Ral and Ramautar Rai, both sons of Narsingh Rai. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs for redemption of mortgage deeds mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs - appellants have got no right of redemp tion as the plaintiffs' suit for redemption is barred by Section 30 and Article 61 of the New Limitation Act, 1963.3. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Court framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Devi Vs. Shahnaz Begum and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. The main question which has come to the surface in this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short the CPC) is as to whether the rejection of an application seeking permission for filing the Written Statement beyond the period of limitation in terms of the amended provision of Order VIII Rule (1) of the CPC by the trial Court by passing an order on 2.3.2005 in Title Suit No. 312 of 2003 is legal and valid or not.A few admitted material facts, useful for the consideration and adjudication of the sole point raised in this Revision may be highlighted at this juncture :(1) The title Suite came to be filed by the opposite parties No. 1 in this Revision who is the original plaintiff, for declaration of title in which the trial Court passed an order to proceed with the matter ex-pane on 4.2.2004.(2) The petitioner in this Revision, original defendant, applied for recalling the ex-parte order and the trial Court, upon consideration of ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Madhusudan Pathak and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Navin Sinha, J.1. The above mentioned two writ applications arise out of singular proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench and have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by this common order. CWJC No. 5681 of 2004 preferred by the Union of India would assail the direction of the Tribunal to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner in CWJC No. 6334 of 2004. The latter would question the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner.2. We have heard at length learned Senior Counsel Dr. Sadanand Jha appearing on behalf of the delinquent petitioner Shri Pathak, assisted by Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate and Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathy, the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India.3. This Court would consider the facts of the case in so far as they be relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present controversy. The petitioner in CWJC No. 6334 of 2004 would question the ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ballava Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 200 dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure-18) by which he has been denied of first and second time bound promotion on the plea that he did not exercise option within 90 days as per the Government decision contained in Annexure-10.2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer of Civil Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Gaya and joined on 14.8.1965. On 16.7.1969 he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering and was posted at Government Polytechnic, Saharsa vide Annexure-1.3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when persons junior to the petitioner were granted two time bound promotions and he was denied of the same, he filed several representations for redressal of his said grievance and ultimately he filed writ petition before this Court bearing CWJC No. 16267 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.1.2002 (Annexure-16) with an obser...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Sagar Dhwaj Ratna and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal for the petitioner, and Mr. Pumendu Singh, learned junior counsel to standing counsel No. 4.2. Four petitioners have joined together raising disjointed causes of action with respect to cancellation of their separate and distinct licenses for Public Distribution System. The office has completely failed to report this aspect of the matter. This appears to be a purposive act on the part of the office and is happening repeatedly in large number of cases. Office does not point out the defect in a situation where different writ petitions ought to have been filed by the petitioners. Learned Registrar General is hereby directed to examine the matter and submit his report before Hon'ble the Chief Justice.3. Law is well settled that one writ petition is maintainable for one cause of action and the consequential reliefs in the present case, the four petitioners were granted different licenses for running shops of Public Distribution System givin...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. Satya NaraIn Prasad and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-26-2005
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be called 'the Code'), the appellant original unsuccessful plaintiff, has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, refusing an order for eviction against the respondent-defendant tenant on the ground that 'the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation', which is a non-residential premises, in terms of the provisions of the Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as 'the BBC Act'), while dismissing the appeal and confirming the view of the trial Court in dismissing the suit.2. The learned counsels for the parties are heard and the entire record has been examined and evaluated.3. The eviction suit, bearing Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1995, came to be dismissed by the trial Court upon examination and appreciation of the evidence on record and holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Lal Srivastava Vs. Prda and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-26-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in Annexure 1 dated 17th August, 1990 and the appellant order dated 14th May, 1992, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed form services.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case, where procedure quite unknown to law has been applied in passing the orders impugned. It is also submitted that the Secretary of the Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as 'PRDA'), who raised the grievances against the petitioner, became Judge of his own cause, inasmuch as he issued the order of suspension and also order of dismissal and he became a witness in the proceeding. It is further submitted that it would appear from the materials on record that Shri Saheb Sharan, Secretary, PRDA had drawn the charges against the petitioner on the basis of which he was put under suspension vide order, as contained in Ann...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »