Patna Court April 2006 Judgments
Shobha Coir Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. This writ petition was filed initially on behalf of a company under the name & style of M/s Shobha Coir Foam Pvt. Ltd. which is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The company was represented by its Managing Director Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha. Later, a supplementary affidavit was filed stating that the writ petition sought to challenge a proceeding initiated against Ajit Kumar Sinha in his personal capacity and hence, the petition should have been filed on his behalf and not at the instance of the company. A prayer was made to substitute Ajit Kumar Sinha personally in place of the company.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is allowed and Ajit Kumar Sinha is taken as the petitioner in this case.3. The company M/s Shobha Coir Foam Pvt. Ltd. was a borrower from the Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited (BICICO for short). The petitioner, as the Managing Director of the company, was one of the guarantors for repayment of the loan ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Prasad Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Barin Ghosh, J. 1. Heard both the parties.2. The word 'Sewak' in Hindi means 'servant'. The word 'Secretary' if translated into Hindi would mean 'Sahayak'. The Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 1947 provided for appointment of Sewak in every Gram Panchayat, Who shall be so appointed was decided by the Government and in that regard various executive orders were issued from time to time. In terms thereof. Dalpaties working in the Gram Panchayat on being trained were entitled to be appointed in the vacant posts of Sewak available in the blocks where the Dalpaties were working. The legislature brought in Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and by Section 157 thereof repealed the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. While repealing the said Act, it provided that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by and under the 1993 Act as if the 1993 Act was in...
Tag this Judgment!Parma Nand Chaudhary Vs. Most. Sarshwati Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The present revision application is directed against an order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 by which the court below has recalled ex party judgement and decree.2. Petitioner was the plaintiff, the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The suit was decreed ex party in the year 1989. In 1999 an execution application was filed by the decree holder. In 2002 the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed by the defendant who had not appeared in the Suit. In the said application it was stated that he learnt that the plaintiff had obtain an ex party decree and was seeking its execution he immediately got an inspection done and from that discovery the ex party judgment and decree within a day application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed.3. On behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner it is first urged that the application should not be entertained in absence of an application for condonation of delay as in terms of Article 123 of the Limitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Shrivastava Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by Sri S.B. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 1609C/2001 (Trial No. 1911/2001) by which he has ordered to issue summons against the petitioner for standing trial for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard.3. The prosecution case as disclosed from the complaint petition dt. 21.9.2001 is that the complainant (O.P. No. 2) is a poor and illiterate person. In the month of March in the preceding year, the accused Bhikhari Baitha went alongwith the accused petitioner to the house of the complainant and informed him that the petitioner was distributing loan on subsidy and he should avail of the facility. The petitioner also assured that the loan would be advanced within 3 month alongwith due subsidy. After some days both the accused again went to the complainant and called him at Jogapatti Branch of the Bank for ...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Deo Rajak Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.2001(Annexure-6) of the S.P., Katihar, withholding the increment of two years and the order dated 23.12.2002 (Annexure-7) of the D.I.G., Purnea by which he has confirmed the order of the S.P. and for other consequential benefits.3. The petitioner, a constable, was charged by charge Memo dated 28.4.1995 (Annexure-1) with serious indiscipline and deriliction of duty and in subordination. The charge was that on 28.1.1995 the named accused Shiv Narayan Rajak of Falka P.S. Case No. 1/95 date 3.1.1995 under Sections 341/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken into custody in pothia O.P. when the petitioner returned to the O.P. from his work outside on finding the said accused who was his relation having been put in Hajat be started abusing the In charge of the O.P. Chowkidar and Dafadar and took out his bhale from his government residence and further started abusing them. T...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 as also the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner questions the order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in a pending proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.3. The opposite party No. 2 filed an application on 3.5.2003 for initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. arising out of an apprehension of breach of peace by the reason of residential construction being made by the petitioner upon the subject lands in Mauza Mohammad pur, Khata No. 76 Khesara No. 344, measuring 4 Katha 14 dhurs 10 dhurki The. Subdivisional Magistrate called for a report from, the police. The report dated 7.5.2003 at Annexure 3 states that presently the opposite party (petitioner herein) was carrying on construction work upon the lands. Two brick rooms with a thatched roof had been built, earth had been filled for levelling the land and 15 pillars had been constru...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges an order, dated 20.3.2005 passed by the Collector, Siwan in Revision No. 01 of 2003-04. By the impugned order the Collector cancelled the Parcha granted to Lutawan Sah, the father of the present petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Priviledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act in respect of 10 dhurs of land of plot No. 7029 under khata No. 1303 situate at village Titara, Anchal Mairwa in the district of Siwan.2. The case has many unusual features but the undeniable facts may be stated as follows. Lutawan Sah made an application for grant of Parcha for the disputed land that was registered as P.P.H. Case No. 49 of 1974-75 before the Circle Officer, Mairwa. The orders passed in the proceeding and the enquiry report by the Halka Karmchari and the Circle Inspector are brought on record as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 6. The enquiry report makes interesting reading and the r...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from a shop premises measuring 10 feet / 7 feet on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlord as envisaged under Section 11(C) of the Act. The Trial Court has considered in detail the evidences and come to a clear finding that the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord has been established as by law required and he has considered the question of partial eviction and taken into account the nature of business that the plaintiff intends and the area of the premises in question held that partial eviction will not subserve the purpose of the plaintiff. Thus the suit was decreed. There be(sic)no appeal provided under the Act , the present revision application in terms of Section 14(8) of the Act has been filed.2. Sri Parmeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Smt. Annapurna Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The application for condonation of delay, therefore, shall stand allowed and the delay of 11 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand condoned.2. Rule is made absolute. No costs.3. At the stage of admission learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as, learned Additional Advocate General No. 2 Mr. S.K. Ghose have been heard on the merits of this Letters Patent Appeal as upon consensus it was decided to hear this matter finally. The appellant- original petitioner Dr. Smt. Annapurna Singh has questioned the part of the impugned judgment of the learned Single4. Judge dated 24.2.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 13531 of 2004, whereby, the learned Single Judge found that the original petitioner-appellant is entitled to 100 percent pension, as well as, 100 per...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M.M. Thapar and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for defendant-petitioner and counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party. 2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit in the year 2002 at Patna claiming that pursuant to advertisement, the plaintiff was selected and employed as Manager, Industrial Engineering in JCT Limited, a public limited company under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 at Phagwara, State of Punjab. The other parties i.e. defendant-petitioner and defendant-opposite party are Directors/Officers of the said company. The company which was an employer and had the liability to make payment has not been made party though at the bar it is stated by the plaintiff-opposite party that an amendment petition is pending before the trial court for impleading the company as a defendant. 3. In the suit it is alleged that pursuant to his selection and appointment he worked in the company for a short time and then he was forced to resign. His resignation letter given at Phagwara is dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »