Patna Court October 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishnadeo Pathak and ors. Vs. Hemlata Choudhary
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner whose application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint seeking additional relief has been rejected by the trial Court. The opposite party, pursuant to notice, has appeared and resisted the application. With consent of parties, this application is being heard and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. On behalf of plaintiffs-petitioners, it is submitted that they had filed a suit for declaration of title over Schedule II lands and for a further declaration that the order dated 18-11-1991 passed by the Anchal Adhikari and that passed by the OCLR had no binding effect on the title and possession of the plaintiffs. By the amendment what was sought for was a declaration that the plaintiffs were in possession and confirmation of their possession over the suit lands. The trial Court rejected the amendment application on two grounds firstly that the re...
The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Bindeshswari Prasad Singh and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Barin Ghosh and A.K. Tripathy, JJ.1. The writ petitioner was transferred to Rohtas in the end of December, 1996. Thereafter by order dated 26th April, 1997 the writ petitioner was transferred out of Rohtas. This transfer order was impugned in the writ jurisdiction. A counter affidavit was filed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Rural Development, wherein it was stated that Rohtas is that home district of the writ petitioner. It does not appear that it was contended that since Rohtas was the home district of the writ petitioner, he could not be transferred to Rohtas and accordingly the original transfer order transferring him to Rohtas was issued by inadvertance, which was sought to be rectified by the transfer order, as was impugned in the writ petition.2. The Learned Single Judge in that background held that there was no just reason to transfer the writ petitioner within two months from the date of his transfer to a particular place. The learned Single Judge pointed out that...
Mostt. Asarfi Kuer @ Asarfi Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Barin Ghosh and Ajay Kumar Tripathi, JJ.1. Sub-section (ee) of Section 2 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 provides that the word 'Family' shall mean and include a person, his or her spouse and their minor children. Explanation 2 to Sub-section (ee) of Section 2 of the Act makes it clear that personal law shall not be relevant or be taken into consideration for determining the composition of the family for the purpose of the Act. Therefore in terms of the provisions of the Act the word 'Family' shall mean and include a person, his or her spouse and their minor children. If the person is not married, then he alone shall be taken to be the family within the meaning of word 'Family' as given in the Act.2. Section 5 of the Act provides that it shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except as otherwise provided in the Act, land in excess of the ceiling limit. Therefore Section 5 of the Act mandates that a family as defind by...
Rohit Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Jayanandan Singh, J.1. The sole appellant Rohit Yadav has preferred this appeal against judgment and order of his conviction dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 262 of 1998 holding him guilty under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution started on the fardbeyan of Samarjeet Kumar (P.W.6) recorded by Sub-Inspector of Town Police Station, Begusarai at Kalpana Nursing Home of one Dr. Ashok Sharma at 9.30 A.M. on 15.4.1998. As per the fardbeyan, the informant along with his uncle Naresh Prasad Singh (since deceased) were coming to Begusarai at about 7.15 A.M. to depose in a Sessions Trial. They were being followed by their three Gotiyas, ...
Yawar Ali Rizvi @ Yawar Ali Rizivi and Harendra Kumar Vs. the State of ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. Both these Letter Patent Appeals, by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent in the Patna High Court Rules, have been directed against a common judgment, dated 27.7.2005, passed in CWJC No. 768 of 2000 and CWJC No. 1863 of 2000. They involve identical points and, therefore, common judgment was written by the learned Single Judge and, upon request, we have also taken up both the matters simultaneously and we propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.2. The learned Senior Counsel, Dr. Sadanand Jha, has assailed the impugned judgment contending that they are illegal and not supportable, whereas the learned Counsels for the University and the Government have challenged the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Dr Jha.3. Since both the appeals and original writ petitions involve identical questions of facts, some of the facts, which are common and material, have been highlighted hereunder:CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTSSl. No. DateEVENTS1. 17.2.1981:The appellant...
Lakhichand Agrawal and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. Heard.2. This is an application for quashing the order taking cognizance, dated 29.1.1999 and entire criminal prosecution, in Complaint Case No. 1866/97 and Trial No. 283/2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.3. The case of the complainant is that there was partition between Kamla Prasad Agrawal (Opposite Party No. 2) and his brothers. In the partition his brother, Lakhichand Agrawal (petitioner No. 1) was allotted a share of 570 square feet of land only. Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Kamla Prasad Agrawal, filed a petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj being Complaint case No. 1866 of 1997(Annexure-'1' to this application) under Sections 465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners who were made accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as two other accused persons (accused Nos. 3 and 4) against whom proceeding was quashed vide order dated 19.4.2000 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 20812 of 1...
Rajendra Paswan Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Ramesh Kumar Dutta, J.1. Heard Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel No. 18 for the State.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by part of the order contained in memo No. 2509 dated 3.5.2000 by which it has been directed that the financial benefits on the promoted post of Sub-Inspector of Police shall be given to him only from the date of joining, whereas the promotion has been granted with effect from 20.8.1994.3. The petitioner was appointed as constable in 1971 and subsequently promoted as ASI with effect from 1.4.1981 and confirmed on the said post in March, 1983. Certain juniors to the petitioner including one Nageshwar Paswan were granted promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 20.8.1994 by memo No. 3448 dated 20.8.1994 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bihar. The petitioner's representations having failed, he filed CWJC No. 9713/1996 which was disposed of by order dated 2.9.1997 wi...
Kiran Re-roller's Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard the parties. With consent of parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. The grievance of he petitioner is that under Central Subsidy Scheme of the Central Government, the petitioner, intending to set up a new industrial unit, was entitled to subsidy at the rate of 25% of the capital assets created. It is not in dispute that this amount has to be appraised and certified to the financing institution and forwarded to the State Level Committee which, after appraising the said report, had to sanction the said amount. The finance institution, in the present case, is BICICO which as financing the unit in question and is a State Government undertaking. After sanction by the State Level Committee, the Slate Government has to make a recommendation to the Central Government which, under the said policy, is then obliged to disburse the said amount either to the State Government for disbursement to the unit or to the finan...
Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned J.C. to Govt. Advocate No. 5.2. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent authorities to provide them the revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 1.4.1997 as has been provided to similarly situated class-III employees, who were appointed pursuant to a Common Combined Competitive Examination of the Graduate Standard Examination, particularly taking into account that the juniors to these petitioners are being provided the said pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. The petitioners represent various class-III employees working in different Departments of the State. The petitioners and others have been recruited on the basis of a Common Competitive Examination and thereafter appointments were made from 7.8.1988 onwards to the year 1990. Subsequently another 3rd Graduate Level Recruitment Examination was held from which further appointments were made in the year 1...
Sarifa Devi (Substituted) and ors. Vs. Anna Khatoon and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
S.M.M. Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.1989 passed by Sri B.N.P. Singh, 3rd Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Title Appeal No. 86 of 1973/2 of 1987 upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1973 passed by Sri Kailash Bihari Verma, Munsif III, Gaya in Title Suit No. 65 of 1967 whereby the learned Munsif had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents in part.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiffs-respondents instituted Title Suit No. 65 of 1967 in the court of Munsif, Gaya for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the suit land together with decree for mesne profit. The said suit was decreed in part by judgment dated 28th April, 1973 delivered by the Munsif III, Gaya. Against the said judgment, the defendants-appellants preferred appeal which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 86 of 1973 / 2 of 1987. The appeal was finally heard by Sri B.N.P. Singh, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »