Patna Court April 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.
Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. Radhyshaym Patwa @ Radhiya Patwa and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. For the reasons explained in the application of codonation of delay, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed.2. Heard Mr. Daronachaya, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and Mr. Shashi Sekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-opposite party.3. The present revision application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the order dated 11.2.2002 passed by the learned Munsif. Khagaria in a Final Decree Case No. 82/91 arising; from Title Suit No. 82/91 by which the learned Munsif has allowed the application of defendant No. 6 (the sole contesting defendent-opposite party before this court) by which he has held the suit itself to be not maintainable.4. The facts relevant for adjudication of the case are short and not in dispute. The plaintiff-petitioners along with two others filed a Title Partition Suit No. 82/91 against their brothers and sisters as well as defendant No. 6, who was the purchaser from...
Uchit Bhai Patel Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Ramesh Kr. Datta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to set aside the order dated 13.3,2006 passed by respondent No. 2, the Returning Officer (Panchayat) -cum-Circle Officer, Jamalpur, Munger, by which the nomination paper of the petitioner for election to the post of Mukhiya 2006 has been rejected/cancelled in the scrutiny on the ground that in the nomination form in column Nirbachan Chetra Sankhaya the petitioner has wrongly written the word 3 (three) instead of the word, 8 (eight) and further to restore the. petitioner's nomination.2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the impugned order dated 13,3.2006 which could not be filed by him earlier since it was not available when the writ petition was filed. From perusal of the said order it appears that the ground for rejection was that the voter serial number of both the candidate and the proposer were wrong. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the serial ...
Amar Singh Vs. Baliram Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26th September, 1987 and decree dated 9.11.87 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in Title Appeal No. 95 of 1977 / 36 of 1987 whereby he has been pleased to set aside the judgment dated 14th May, 1977 and decree dated 30.5.77 passed by Sri S. N. Sinha, 1st Additional Sub-Judge, Motihari, in Title Suit No. 82 of 1974 / 137 of 1976 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract.2. Brief facts of the case of the parties are as follows:The plaintiff Baliram Singh finalised talk of sale of 5 Kattha 16 dhurs of land of village Gobindpur on payment of consideration money amounting to Rs. 6.000/- with the defendant Atma Singh and, accordingly, on 14.4.73 the plaintiff paid rupees one thousand to defendant Atma Singh by way of earnest money but as the plaintiff and defendant were Gotiyas, as such, no hand note was required to be executed ...
Gautam Deo Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances stated 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 17 days in filing the appeal shall stand condoned.2. Rule is made absolute. No costs.3. The question involved in this Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is as to whether the voluntary retirement sought and granted is shown to be in any way coloured or influenced or vitiated on account of pressure tactics by the respondent Master which came to be accepted by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 15346 of 2004 filed by the petitioner and came to be decided on 15.2.2006.4. Apart from the question of disputed aspects of the controversy raised, whether the allegation of extraction of voluntary ret...
Rahima Khatoon Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 2 to 7 and. the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint case against her husband, opposite party No. 2, and his family members. The complaint alleged that she was married to opposite party No. 2 on 23.6.2000. Following harassment for the purpose of dowry, they were divorced. A panchayati followed thereafter when the petitioner on 20.8.2000 re-married apposite party No. 2 on payment on payment Den Mohar as specified in the complaint and an agreement was arrived at between the husband and the wife in presence of the 'pan-dies' that he would not make any demands for dowry. The complaint alleges that the husband then treated the petitioner right for one 3-'ear when a child was also born. Then followed demands for a motorcycle and Rs. 5000/-. The petitioner arranged for her father to pay a sum of Rs. 4200/- to her husband and regretted the inabi...
Rana Abhai Singh Vs. the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.THE MAIN PROPOSITION IN FOCUS1. The Sole issue, which is brought into focus by the petitioner, in this petition, by invocation of the Constitutional Writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for our consideration and adjudication, has been 'as to whether the order of compulsory retirement recorded against the petitioner, who was working at the relevant time, as District & Sessions Judge, in the Superior Judicial Service, in the State of Bihar, in terms of the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 (Bihar Code) and denying him the benefit of the extended age from 58 to 60 years, passed by the State Government under the order of the Governor and on the recommendation of the High Court, upon exercise of Administrative wisdom and Jurisdiction, in terms of the constitutional powers, under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, requires any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?2. Thus, shortly st...
Chandra Madhav Mishra and anr. Vs. Braj Kishore Mishra and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 28-2-2005 passed by learned Sub-Judge 6th, Patna in Title Partition Suit No. 262 of 2003 rejecting the petition dated 12-1-2005 filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (Petitioners here). The petitioners filed an application before the trial Court for staying the proceedings in the Title Partition Suit till the decision of Test Suit No. 2 of 2004. This has been rejected giving rise to the present revision application.2. The facts of this case are that one Akshaybat Mishra and his wife Laganmani Kuer had only one issue i.e. daughter Madalsa Devi. Madalsa Devi had three sons namely, Nawal Kishore Mishra (since dead), Nandkishore Mishra (defendant No. 2) and Braj Kishore Mishra (Plaintiff-opposite party). The said Nawal Kishore Mishra died leaving behind three sons who are defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the said suit. It is alleged that Akshaybat Mishra was the absolute owner of the property which is t...
Gopal Prasad Singh @ Gopal Singh and Banoram Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.1. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Mohan Prasad C.M. Prasad, J. Vide judgement doted 31.3.1992 of the Special Judge, Begusarai, passed in Begusorai P.S. case no. 214 of 1985, each of the two appellants has been convicted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of Clause 16, 17 of the Bihar Trade Articles, Licensing Unification Order, 1984 and also for violation of Clause 10 of the Cool Control Order, 1956 and sentenced to under go R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution commenced with the written report (Ext. 2 ) of Arvind Sharma (P.W. 2 ) who alleged that on 4.9.1985 he on the orders of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Begusarai had purchased 5 kgs of coal from the coal depot of the appellant Copal Prasad Singh and Rs. 4.50p had been realised from him as price of the coal but on demand cashmemo for the purchase was not given to him. On the basis of the written report (Ext. 2 ) the informant Shashi Bhushan Sharma the Supply Inspector filed a report dated ...
Bhagya NaraIn Rai Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Twice assembly elections were held in the year 2005 - one in the 1st part of the year 2005 and the other in the latter part of the year 2005. In the list of voters prepared for election held in the 1st part of the year 2005. the name of the petitioner featured as a voter of Kanti Assembly Constituency within Part No. 179. Mohammadpur Sube @ Baneri Gram Panchayat. For no reason forthcoming, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the voters list for the assembly election held in the latter part of the year 2005. The petitioner came to learn about such deletion in the month of July, 2005 i.e. much prior to holding of the election in the latter part of the year 2005. On 21st July. 2005. the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed form for making necessary correction in the voters list. The correction. as was applied for by the petitioner, was not acceded to and accordingly, the name of the petitioner did not feature in the voters list prepared for the ...
Arvind Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. K.D. Chatterjee for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain for respondent No. 2 (Punjab National Bank), Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey for respondent No. 3 (Sri Ram Chandra Khan), and Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This writ petition arises out of recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and is directed against the order dated 18.1.2006 (Annexure-5), passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Appeal No. 9 of 2005 (Arvind Kumar Sinha v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.), passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act, which upheld the order dated 18.10.2005 (Part-I) (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Patna, in R.P. No. 30 of 2001 (Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna v. Thriller and Ors.).2. Respondent n.7 (Rajiv Kumar Sinha) had obtained a loan of Rs. three lacs on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »