Patna Court April 2006 Judgments
Sundari Devi and anr. Vs. Dilip Kumar Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. These three civil revision applications arise out of an eviction proceedings instituted by the plaintiffs Smt Sundari Devi and her husband Sheo Dhyan Singh for eviction of the defendant Dilip Kumar Singh who happens to be one of their son for evicting him from their residential house being Eviction Suit No 18 of 1999 as before Additional Munsif III, Patna.2. In civil revision No 340 of 2005, the plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 25.02.2005 passed in the said suit wherein while deciding the preliminary issue on the basis of pleadings, the trial Court held defendant to be a coparcener of the joint family and, as such, he held that the question of title is essential to be decided. Hence, the plaintiffs were directed to take appropriate steps in the matter. In the second civil revision application that is C R No 1183 of 2005, the plaintiffs' challenge is to the order dated 21.05.2O05 passed in the sane suit whereby in view of non-compliance of the dire...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is for quashing the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur in Misc. Case No. 102 of 2002/ T.R. No. 1277 of 2004 under Section 125 of the code by which he has ordered the petitioner to pay ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month to his wife Smt. Shobba Singh (Opposite Party No. 2) for maintenance of herself at the rate of Rs. 400/- and for her four minor children at the rate of Rs. 250/- each per month.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the state. Opposite Party No. 2, though has appeared in this case by filing Vakalatnama but no one on her behalf appeared in Court when the case was called out for hearing.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to keep Opposite Party No. 2 and the four children but Opp...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Chaudhary @ Shiv Shankar Chaudhary @ Shive Shanker Kumar and S ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. State as well as opposite party No. 2.2. Petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2004. By the impugned order, earlier order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur, allowing the petition filed by the petitioners for holding an enquiry under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been overlooked and without holding an enquiry as provided under Section 49 of the Act the Petitioner has been asked to participate in the Sessions Trial, as well as charge has also been framed against them along with the other accused persons.3. Tanpur (Waini) P.S. case No. 163 of 2003 was instituted on 2.7.2003 under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in which petitioners, namely, Shiv Shankar Chaudhary and Subrat Ku...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing Memo Nos. 267, 268, 270, 271 and 272 all dated 2.4.2003 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer Rural Employment Programme. Bhojpur at Ara as contained in Annexure-1 series by which he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,07 (sic) in that office and also for quashing the subsequent letters issued under Annexure-2 series, Annesure-3 series and Annexure-4 series which are in the same terms.2. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme, Bhojpur at Ara and during the financial year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 he was made incharge of certain Schemes under the M.P. Local Area Development sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. On the completion of some of the schemes it was found that excess payment has been made by the petitioner whereas the full amount of work has not been done. It appears that the notices were issued to the petitioner to be pre...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Ganauri (Dead) Represented Through Legal Heirs and ors. Vs. Nes ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.89 passed in Title Appeal No. 26/84 /42/S7 by Sri B.N.P. Singh, 3rd Additional District Judge, Nawadah. Whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 1979 passed in Title Suit No. 14/68/29 of 1976 by Sri Kedar Nath Ambastha, Munsif, Nawadah and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that this case has got a very chequered history as firstly the suit was decided by the Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, on 24th June, 1972. whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and against the said judgment and decree the defendants-appellants preferred appeal being Title Appeal No. 13 of 1975/103 of 1972 D.J. which was heard by the 4th Additional District Judge, Gaya, and by judgment dated 13th December, 1975, the said app...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Yadav and Shashikant Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar and Parmeshw ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 26.5.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court No. II, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 746 of 2003 by which he has directed to issue summons against the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the original prosecution story, the daughter of the informant was taken away by one Amanat Mian. In course of investigation, specially in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 161 of the Code, it transpired that one Chhotu Mian was also involved in thesaid crime of kidnapping the girl. Chargesheet was submitted against these two persons and the cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of Session and the trial begun. In course of trial the witnesses were examined and on the petition filed by the informant under Section 319 the learned trial...
Tag this Judgment!A. Chandeshwar Yadav @ Chandoo Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an application filled under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the code) for quashing the order dated 23.2.2004 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwary, J.M. Ist class, Danapur in Complaint case No. 44 (C) of 2004 by which he has found a prima facie case against the petitioners to proceed with offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has directed for insurance of (SIC) against them.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that with respect to the same incident another case has been filed viz. Bikram (Dulhin Bazar) P.S. Case No. 134/2003 under Sections 341, 307/34 of the India Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant of the said case is one Hiralal Yadav and the case has been filed against Dudheshwar Bind alias Sidheshwar Bind and Raj Kishore Bind (who are not accused of the present complaint case). Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that a when for the offence already been filed w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sagar Pathak Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, counsel for the petitioner and the J.C. to G.A. I representing the State.2. This writ petition was filed seeking payment of certain contractual dues. Admittedly, a larger part of the petitioner's claim has been paid to him but Mr. Dayal pressed this writ petition for the smaller amount that was deducted and interest for delayed payment.3. The petitioner had done some work in connection with an irrigation project in the year 1990-1991. Payment for the work was not made to him and seeking a direction to the authorities for the payment of his dues, this writ petition was filed on 12.05.2004. Mr. Dayal submitted that from the departmental correspondences, it would appear that the admitted dues was Rs. 3,14,450. After filing of the writ petition, however, the petitioner was paid the amount of Rs. 3,14,450. He submitted that there was no reason for the authorities to deduct a sum of Rs. 27,000 and further that no statement of account was given t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Rana Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. In Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman reported in 1992(1) P.L.J.R. 27 the Supreme Court has observed as follows:We are, therefore, broadly in aggrement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceeding. 2. In the instant case the case of promotion of the petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotional Committee inasmuch as a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. There is no dispute that if the said disciplinary proceeding was not pending, the petitioner would have been promoted to the promotional post on 18th September, 1997, The disciplinary proceeding terminated in favour of the petitioner and...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Singyh and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. None appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.3.2003 as also the entire proceedings in Complaint. Case No 307 of 2003 under Sections 498A, 323, 379 of the Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the SDJM East Muzaffarpur.3. The petitioners are stated to be the married sister of the husband of the complainant and her husband. They have been implicated as accused 7 and 6 respectively in the complaint.4. The allegations are that the complainant was married to accused No. 1 on 10.6.98. She went to her matrimonial home and started residing with her husband. The husband, the mother-in-law, the brother-in-law, his wife and the present petitioners all reside in one house in Khagaul. There are omnibus a legation against the petitioners that they along with other accu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »