Patna Court November 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.
Manoj Choudhary and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Subash Chandra Jha, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This is an application for quashing the order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the SDJM, Muzaffarpur(West)on Complaint Case No. 11/96, Tr.No. 754/2005.3. The complainant Ramdeo Chowdhury, being father of the deceased Pratima Devi, has alleged that marriage of his daughter Pratima Devi with Petitioner No. 1 Manoj Chowdhary was solemnised on 19.2.1994 at village Shahpur Patti, P.S. Sahebgunj. Dt. Muzaffarpur, by observing Hindu rites and rituals. He spent sufficient money as per his capacity at such marriage so as to please the husband of Pratima Devi as also his father. But even then they were not pleased because of non-fulfilment of dowry demand of Motor-cycle and with heavy heart they proceeded with the brid for their place. Thereafter, all the accused persons cited in the complaint petition started torturing on Pratima Devi with the result that she had/been kept confined in a room without food and water for long four days besides being tortured...
Shital Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Subash Chandra Jha, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This is and application for quashing the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 547/2002, Tr.No. 2035/2002 as well as order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class/Metihari Sri D.P. Keshri.3. The complainant has sold sugar cane to the Eastern Sugar and Industries Limited, having its Head-quarter at Calcutta, West Bengal, and one of the unit is situated at Motihari. Accused No. 2 of the complaint petition i.e. Motihari Chini Udyog, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar, through its Executive Chairman opened an account in the name of the complainant and issued two cheques thereon for payment of the price which was Rs. 16,572/-. When the two cheques were presented before Champaran Area Gramin Bank, Branch-Shankar Sariya, the same were not honoured because insufficiency of fund. The complainant after such dishonour of the cheques gave legal notice to Accused No. 1 Eastern Sugar and Industries Lim...
Gauri Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. The above appeals are directed against the same judgment dated 19.7.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 1997/70 of 1998 and as such they have been heard together and this judgment would dispose of all of them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the above judgment, has convicted all the appellants except appellants Anil Yadav and Ram Janam Yadav under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted appellants Anil Yadav and Ram Janam Yadav under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further convicted appellants Anil Yadav, Ram Janam Yadav and Gaya Yadav under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced all the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased and has further sentenced Anil Yadav, Ram Janam Yadav Yadav and Gaya Yadav to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act wit...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mosmat Gondia Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 authorises preferring of an appeal to the High Court from an order of the Commissioner awarding compensation or disallowing a claim on that account in full or in part. Clause (aa) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act authorises an appeal to the High Court from the order passed by the Commissioner awarding interest or penalty in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act provides that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the Memorandum of Appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Therefore, the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act applies in relation to an appeal preferred by an employer challenging the compensation as awarded. When the...
Dr. Vibhuti Narayan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 21.2.2004 (Annexure-1), whereby the services of the petitioners have been recognised with effect from 1.4.1981 instead of 29.1.1981. Said order has also directed for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioners taking their date of recognition as 29.1.1981.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners were working in Rai Bahadur Tunki Sah Government Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital. hereinafter referred the as the College. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Provincialisation of Roads and Hospitals Act, 1947 by notification dated 29.1.1981 took over the College with effect from 1.4.1981. However, 33 employees' services, which included the petitioners, were recognised not from the date from which the College was taken over but from the date of notification dated 29.1.1981. Three of the empl...
Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard the parties.2. By the present Writ application the petitioner has challenged the action being taken in Certificate Proceedings No. 588/1994-95 pending before the Certificate Officer, Katihar 1n so far as it relates to the petitioner and her property.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Certificate Officer and a separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kat1har, who are the requisitioning authorities and the certificate holders.4. With the consent of the parties this application has been heard and 1s being disposed of at the admission stage itself.5. The petitioner asserts that certain loan was taken by one Om Prakash Monka. The respondent- Co-operative Bank alleges that the petitioner stood gurantor in the said loan and mortgaged her property to the bank as security for the said loan. This 1s straneously denied by the petitioner. For the present 1t 1s not for this Court to resolve this dispute as t...
Shivam Aqua Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organiza ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Section 2(i) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines 'Industry' as any industry specified in Schedule I, and includes any other industry added to the Schedule by notification under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act specifically authorises the Central Government to bring in Schedule I any other industry which has not been previously included in Schedule I to the Act.2. The Act applies to, amongst others, every establishment, which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I to the Act and in which 20 or more persons are employed. Therefore, a factory belonging to any industry specified in Schedule I to the Act engaging 20 or more persons is covered by the Act. If the industry is not specified in Schedule I, even if the factory of such industry is engaging more than 20 persons, the factory is not covered by the Act. It is, however, open to the Central Government to...
Rubi Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Sessions Judge erred in exercising jurisdiction to set aside the order taking cognizance in respect of her in-laws. On her behalf, it is submitted that in course of investigation itself, the petitioner being the informant (wife) had filed a protest petition before the Court alleging that the Investigation Officer had been won over. After investigation and supervision, a chargesheet was filed sending up only the husband for trial of an offence under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, apparently perusing the case diary and in specific referring to four paragraph thereof, disagreed with the chargesheet and took cognizance against the husband of the petitioner and the in-laws who had not been sent up for trial. The learned Magistrate did not reject the chargesheet or the investigation and did not choose to proceed on basis of the pretest petition. The petition...
Babban Maurya and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Seema Ali Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2.2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, by which he has held that territorial jurisdiction lies with the Court situated at Sasaram. The petitioners have contended that since the occurrence has taken place at Ballia (in the State of U. P.) and because he is resident of Ballia (in the State of U. P.) the territorial jurisdiction would be within the Courts at Ballia.3. The question which is to be determined is where the trial should be held. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed. Therefore, where it is alleged that the crime is committed in more than one place then it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas.4. The law being quite clear on the subje...
The Municipality Commissioner Vs. Manu Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Commissioner of Sasaram Municipality (defendant-appellant) through its Chairman against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1990 and 14.5.1990, respectively, passed, in Title appeal No. 61 of 1980 by Sri Laxman Oraon, 5th Additional District Judge, Sasaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1980 and 5.5.1980 passed by Sri Rajnath Ram, Ist Additional Munsif, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 152 of 1971 / 91 of 1977 whereby the learned Additional Munsif has been pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The original plaintiff Ramdhari Singh filed a title suit before the court of Munsif Ist, Sasaram which was numbered as Title Suit No. 152 of 1971 for declaration that the plaintiff has acquired the status of a permanent lessee by virtue of the resolution passed by Sasaram Municipality on 10.8.1957 and as per its acceptance by the plaintiff vide ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »