Patna Court November 2006 Judgments

Computeronix Bihar Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bihar State Madarsa Educatio ...

Court: Patna

Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27-2-96 passed in Money Suit No. 63 of 1994 by Sri Hem Shankar Kumar Singh. Subordinate Judge 1st. Patna whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a 'total sum of Rs. 2.05.197.46p. but granted interest pendente lite and fu-lure @ 10% per annum instead of 24% P.A. monthly compoundable interest, the plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Computeronix Bihar Private Limited, is a Small Scale Industrial Unit registered with Directorate of Industries, Government of Bihar and plaintiff No. 2, is its Managing Director. The plaintiff was entrusted with the work of computerisation of the tabulation registers of defendant No. 1 Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna for the period between 1964 to 1984. The order was placed by the Secretary of defendant No. 1 through letter No. Comp 89-01 dated 11-4-1989...

N.K. Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Mishra, J.1. Common grievance of petitioners in all these writ application relate to inter changeability from super speciality to parent speciality department. Petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the action of the respondents/ Department of Health and Medical Education the State of Bihar of giving ad-hoc/working arrangement promotion to doctors appointed against sanctioned post of super speciality to the posts of parent speciality namely general surgery and general medicine. Besides that the petitioners have also challenged their inter-se seniority with private respondents in their writ applications and their specific prayer is to quash such notifications by which such respondents have been promoted on ad-hoc/working professor, Professor in parent speciality, although working in super speciality department. Question of law set out in these writ petitions demonstrate that the nature of writ petitions are not confined to the adjundication of issues for dispute in between the pet...

Sk. GayasuddIn @ Sk. Bhulan and Sk. NasiruddIn Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Jayanandan Singh, J.1. A common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah dated 9th September, 2002 in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2001 is under challenge in both the appeals. By the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, appellant Sk. Gayasuddin @ Sk. Bhulan of Cr. Appeal No. 641 of 2002 has been convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant Sk. Nasiruddin of Cr. Appeal No. 737 of 2002 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Both have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. In addition, both the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years, three years and one year respectively. Sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Prosectulon was lodged on the ...

Harendra Rai and ors. Vs. Chandrawati Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1975 passed by 3rd Addl. Sub Judge, Arrah in T.S.No. 44 of 1968/163 of 1974 whereunder he has dismissed the suit on contest with costs to the contesting defendants. The original appellant/plaintiff Shree Rai had filed the suit against the defendant 1st and 2nd sets and against the proforma defendant No. 11 Harinandan Rai for declaration of his title and recovery of possession as well as for partition of the suit property mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint to the extent of half share in the property, measuring 56 acres consisting of several plots of Khata Nos. 10. 284. 347, 194 of Mauza Situhari, P.S. Sahar, District Arrah (Bhojpur). There was also prayer for declaration that the deed of gift dated 20.12.1955, which is described by the defendants 1st set as a deed of surrender, executed by Rajbanshi Kuer in their favour, who are sons, daughters etc. of Bhagrasna and Phul Kuer with respect to the suit pr...

Usha Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The interlocutory application has been filed for impleading the applicants as intervenor-respondents to intervene in support of the stand of the respondents. The applicants are the persons who have been selected for appointment to the post of Village Level Worker having qualified as per the selection process.2. In view of the fact that the result of this writ petition may affect the said applicants, the intervention application is allowed and I.A.No. 3630 of 2002 is accordingly disposed of.3. Heard Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anand Kumar Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor-respondents and learned J.C. to Additional Advocate General No. 1.4. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondent No. 4, District Magistrate, Darbhanga to recommend her name for appointment to the post of Village Level Worker. The petitioner had applied for the said post pursuant to an advertisement p...

Mostt. Sakuntala Devi and ors. Vs. Hardeo Rai

Court: Patna

Barin Ghosh and Madhavendra Saran, JJ.1. There . must be three 'Ps' in order to constitute an agreement for sale. The first P. represents the parties, who must be identified. The second P. represents the property, which must be specified. The third P. represents the ascertained price, agreed to be paid.2. Every agreement, however, is not a contract. In order to be a contract, the consideration or object of the agreement must be lawful. If the object of the agreement is to cause injury to the person or property of another, the agreement does not become a contract.3. Only such agreements, which are contracts, can be enforced by specific performance. The court will, therefore, not decree a suit for specific performance where the consideration or object of the agreement is not lawful. The court will also not grant a decree for specific performance, as claimed, when to the notice of the court the decree would become a futile decree. Therefore, when the plaintiff seeks the defendant to exec...

Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ39CAT

1. The applicant who was employed as the Vice-Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatan (K.V.S. in short). Upper Shillong underwent a preliminary inquiry ordered by the Competent Officer on the allegation of molesting a girl student, whereafter he was terminated from service.He has come for quashing of Annexure-A/4, order dated 10.11.2003 by which his services were terminated on allegation of moral turpitude, as well for quashing of Annexure-A/7 by which his appeal was also dismissed. Further praying to direct the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. As per the applicant, the respondents may be directed for conducting a regular inquiry against the applicant giving him reasonable opportunity to defend.2. Before proceeding further, Article 81(b) of the Education Code (in short, the Code) of K.V.S. may be reproduced which admittedly is applicable to the applicant: 81(b) Termination of services of an employee found guilty of immoral behaviour towards students. Wher...

Sita Ram Pandit and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the State. No-one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 in spite of service of notice.2. The petitioners have challenged the order of taking cognizance dated 24.8.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in G.R. No. 14/86, TR No. 2217/04 solely on the ground that the cognizance is barred by limitation as provided under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the date of occurrence is 27.5.1985 whereas the cognizance has been taken after lapse of about nineteen years on 24.8.2004. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned for condoning the delay.4. I have gone through the entire records including the complaint petition as well as the impugned order as also the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the limitation is only three years for taking co...

Rajwant Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. Heard.2. This is an application for quashing the order dated- 1.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 101(C) of 2005, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the petitioner alleged to be punishable under Sections 405 and 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner.3. The complaint case was lodged by opposite party No. 2 Birendra Kumar, stating therein, that settlement agreement dated- 28.6.2004 was made between Indo-China Products through its C.E.O (petitioner), accused No. 2 Vivek Sheel and the complainant. As per settlement agreement, accused No. 2 Vivek Sheel (non-petitioner) had given Rs. 3 lacs by way of post dated cheques to the complainant and in return the complainant supplied the required products. It is said that out of seven post dated cheques only one cheque dated- 12.8.2004 of Rs. 27,000/- was ho...

Vijay Kumar Singh and ors. and Krishna Kamal Prasad @ Krishna Kant Pra ...

Court: Patna

S.C. Jha, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Both these two applications having similar nature are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.3. These two applications are for quashing the orders dated 10.6.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Official Case Nos. 67/2002 8. 68/2002, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 6 and 7 of the Factory Act punishable under Section 92 of the Factory Act against these Petitioners.4. Prosecution case in short is that these Petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Factory Act and Rules 3, 3A, 4 and 5 of Bihar Factory Rule, 1950.5. It is stated that on 6.9.1999 a lease deed was executed in Form-D under Rule 21 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 in favour of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 (Names of all the petitioners as also the facts have been taken from Cr. Misc. No. 26209/2002) by the authorised authority of O.P. No. 1 by whic...