Patna Court April 2006 Judgments
Savita Kumari and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. After Anganbari Sevikas and Sahaikas were selected by the Aam Sabhas, a list containing the names of the nine selected Sevikas/Sahaikas, was prepared and the same was forwarded to Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad for appointment. Whereas the petitioner No. 1 was recommended for being appointed as Sevika, petitioner No. 2 was recommended for being appointed as Sahaika. Both the petitioners belong to Backward class Community. Of those nine persons, who had been so recommended along with the petitioners, five belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. Those five persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community were appointed, but the petitioners were not. They were not even intimated why they were not appointed. In the counter affidavit, a boggy of dispute has been raised to the effect that Scheduled Caste Community at the locality in question was in the majority and accordingly, only a member of the Scheduled Caste Community could be recommended for appointment an...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for holding and declaring the selection process of Anganbari Sebika held on 24.12.2002 persuant to the notice dated 12.12.2002 as contrary to the guideline/instructions dated 6.12.1995 of the Welfare Department and further to cancel the appointment letter issued in favour of the guideline of the State Government ignoring better claim of the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that she applied on 16.12.2002 in the office of C.D.P.O.P. Pallgani, Patna against the notice dated 12.12.2002 published on the notice board braving for selection of the eligible candidate for the post of Anganbari Sabika for Chandhos Gram Panchayat. The petitioner claims that only she has requisite qualification. She being the widow has better right to be selected for the said post. The petitioner and others appeared for the interview but Kumari was selected although according to the petitioner she being a widow she was required to be g...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Sri Kapildeo Vishkarma
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No. 7 and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 for the appellants, and Mr. L.N. Rastogi for the Department of Income Tax.2. This matter has been coming up repeatedly before the Bench without much of result. Lands of indigent farmers are acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is a common experience in the State of Bihar that the proceedings under the Act take an unduly long time. The State of Bihar takes over possession of the land and the land owner has to wait for many years for compensation. He is deprived of his primary for sole source of livelihood without payment of compensation for years and years, often times covering two decades or more. The State of Bihar quite often prefers trivial appeals before this Court where the valuation of the appeal ranges between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 25,000/- and beyond. Although the State Government issued a circular nearly thre...
Tag this Judgment!Jhagru Nonia and ors. Vs. Most. Bipti and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12th September, 1985 passed in Title Appeal No. 115 of 1977 by Sri Kamla Prasad Sinha, 2nd Additional District Judge, Siwan whereby he has been pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 9.7.1977 passed by M.A. Siddique, Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 593 of 1972 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs - appellants.2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that Mahipat Nonia was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. He died leaving behind him his two sons, namely, Hiraman Nonia and Sohan Nonia. Hiraman died leaving behind his son Gulab Nonia and Gulab died leaving behind his son Bakal Nonia. Bakal Nonia had two sons namely, Raj Kumar and Rajman, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Rajkumar Nonia. Rajman died leaving behind his son Nagina who was blind by birth and he died unmarried. Defendant No. 7 is the auction purch...
Tag this Judgment!Naman Smokeless Fuel Industries Private Limited Vs. the Bihar State Cr ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Singh counsel representing the Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited (BICICO for short).2. The petitioner is a borrower from the BICICO. As a result of default in repayment of the loan amount, the dues against it accumulated with the accrued of interest. In those circumstances, the petitioner made ah application for settlement of its dues under the One-Time Settlement scheme (OTS). The BICICO gave its sanction for the settlement of the loan under OTS vide letter, dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure 4) spelling out the terms & conditions and the instalments for payment of a total sum of Rs. 41,18,000/- plus the amount of surcharge. The petitioner gave to the BICICO post-dated cheques/demand drafts amounting to a total sum of Rs. 42,94,180/-. Out of those cheques/bank drafts, only a cheque of Rs. two lakhs was encashed and the remaining got dishonoured. The BICICO then withdrew the OT...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. By this writ petition, by invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Indian Oil Corporation (In short 'IOC'), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and as such, a Central Government undertaking, has knocked the doors of justice on account of alleged illegal imposition of tax by an assessment order, dated, 14.4.1999, which came to be confirmed by the appellate authority, by order dated 12.5.2000, as well as, by an order in a revision, dated 4.3.2005 (unsuccessful petitioner at three stages), raising the following points in focus:Whether the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna, confirming the imposition of levy of sales tax on the 'export sale' made by the petitioner to Nepal, is required to be intercepted or Injected by an interlocutory order, until disposal of the petition on full fledged hearing on merits being unauthoised, illegal and without sanction of law? 2. With a view to appre...
Tag this Judgment!Kripa Shankar @ Kripa Shanker Prasad and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the teamed Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 as also the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioners seek quashing of the First Information Report registered as Sheikhpura PS Case No. 151 of 2003 as also the order of cognizance thereupon dated 3.1.2004 under Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, Sections 78 & 79 of the Trade Merchandises Act and Sections 406, 419 & 420 of the Penal Code.3. The FIR alleges that the informant, an Executive Magistrate purchased two bottles of cold drinks (Sprite) from the shop of one Arun Prasad. Fungus like material was seen in the bottle which was also emitting a foul smell Arun Prasad conceeded having got the same from the petitioners who are whole sellers. The petitioners are alleged to have acknowledged, sale of the cold drink to Arun Prasad. The petitioners were suspected to be selling fungus infected harmf...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Ranjana Sinha and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing this Letters Patent Appeal within time. The application for condonation of delay shall, therefore, stand allowed and the delay of 174 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal shall stand condoned.2. Rule is made absolute. No costs.3. In so far as the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, it is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 12268 of 2001, whereby, the prayer of the original petitioners, respondents herein, came to be granted to the extent that their claim for equivalent scale in view of the Fitment Committee Report, as well as, the new scale paid to the Central Government employees is justified.4. The respondents herein are the original petitioners who claimed the scale...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ranjan Pd. Sinha and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. By a letter dated 16th December, 2003, being Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the petitioners were informed that they are receiving remuneration in excess to their entitlement. By the said letter, they were asked to show cause and at the same time, were asked to deposit the excess amount drawn by them with the treasury on or before 31st December, 2000. In this letter, it had not been mentioned as to what the petitioners were entitled to and what was being withdrawn by them and accordingly, what was excess withdrawal. Therefore, the letter did not indicate what excess amount was to be deposited by the petitioners. By Annexure-6 to the writ petition, being letter dated 9th January, 2004, it was held out that the petitioners have not deposited the excess amount withdrawn by them although they have submitted their show cause and accordingly, if the excess withdrawal is not deposited by 31st January, 2004, appropriate action would be initiated against the petitioner. In t...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. BipIn Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Barin Ghosh, J. 1. Heard both the parties.2. Services of the petitioner have been terminated for the Director General of Police has refused to give concurrence to the appointment of the petitioner and hence, this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointing authority, being the Superintendent of Police, it was unjust to terminate the appointment given by the Superintendent of Police for non-approval of such appointment by the Director General of Police. If the appointment as was given to the petitioner, was given fairly, the Court, would have gone into the contention as raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioned, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner could not be given an appointment by the Superintendent of Police in the circumstances he purported to appointment of the petitioner, the appointment from the date one was a nonest appointment and the same having not crystalized into a legal appointment could be put to art end at an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »