Patna Court July 2006 Judgments
Rajendra Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav, Deo NaraIn Yadav and Chandrika Yadav ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated. 27.5.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul by which he has taken cognizance under 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and ordered to issue summons against the four petitioners and accused Kamleshwari Yadav (not the petitioner here) for facing trial for both the offences.2. Heard both sides.3. It appears that Opposite Party No. 2 Ranjana Devi had filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police Supaul against her husband, petitioner Rajendra Yadav and other petitioners for talking action against them for torture and dowry and on the basis of that Tribeniganj P.S. Case No. 11/2001 dated 11.1.2001 was registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The impugned order shows that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sri Prakash Kumar Gajre and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The present writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 286 of 2001, by which the Tribunal has allowed the said case and quashed the order dated 11/13.4.2000 passed by petitioner No. 2, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and also quashed the order No. 95 of 2000 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (petitioner No. 3) terminating the service of respondent No. 1, Sri Prakash Kumar Gajre and the Tribunal further directed that the applicant (Respondent No. 1) would be put back in duty with all consequential benefits.2. Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid original application challenging his termination order from the post of Public Prosecutor by order dated 11/13.4.2000 issued by the Director, C.B.I, and office order No. 95/2000 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the Superintendent of Poli...
Tag this Judgment!Chumman Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 3.6.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, IX, Muzaffarpur in S.T. No. 866 of 2005 by which the learned court below has admitted the carbon copies of the medical certificates as primary evidence and taken has (sic) the same into evidence.2. From the facts of this case it would appear that before (sic) the learned court below the present petitioners who figured as accused had prayed that the original medical certificates may be called for alongwith an agreement with which for the present I am not concerned . The carbon copies of the medical certificates (Annexures 4 and 4/A) were on record. On behalf of the petitioners it was objected that the carbon copies were secondary piece of evidence and they should not be admitted unless the neccessary legal requirements are fulfilled. The learned court below has rejected this prayer of ...
Tag this Judgment!Automatrix Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
S.N. Hussain, J.1. I.A.No. 6160 of 2005 has been filed by the M/s Amrapali Automobiles through one of its partners for being impleaded as party respondent to the instant case.2. Considering the averments made in this application and the facts and circumstances, the applicant has only applied before the authorities concerned for the area in question to be allotted to it and hence it cannot at this stage claim any right over the same. Furthermore since this case is very seriously contested by the respondents, I do not see any necessity to add the said intervenor as respondent in the instant case and accordingly the above interlocutory application is dismissed.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State and also learned Counsel for the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (respondent No. 3).4. This writ petition has been filed I against order dated 06.6.2005, by which the Industries Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2) dismissed the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Prakash Vs. Rudreshwar Prasad Griyaghey
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. This is an application by tenant from an Eviction Suit against an order by which his application purporting to be in terms of Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code (In short 'CPC') was rejected.2. It is submitted that the tenant-petitioner had filed a Title Suit as against his landlord-opposite party for a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and/or dispossessing him otherwise than in due course of law. The landlord then filed this Eviction Suit. It is submitted that as two suits are pending as between the two parties, by virtue of Section 10 of CPC, the latter suit should stay. This has not been accepted by the trial Court and his application has been rejected though on the ground that Eviction Suit is a proceeding under Section 14 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (In short ('BBC Act') and Section 10 of CPC will not apply.3. I have heard the parties, the landlord-opposite party having entered appear...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Both these writ applications involve certain common questions and, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together.2. Heard Mr. Aditya Narain Singh and Mr. Chakrdhari Sharan Singh, learned Counsels for the petitioners in two cases and learned A.A.G.III and learned J.C. to A.A.G.III for the State.3. The petitioners in both the cases seek their appointment/absorption in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- instead of Rs. 3050-4590/- which has been granted to them on the ground that through the same process of recruitment against class-III posts similarly placed persons have been given pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. The petitioners were Paid Nanagers in the Cooperative Societies and they had filed writ petitions in this Court for their absorption in class-III post in the Government service. The writ petition was allowed by this Court in the year 1994 and subsequently the State government took the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Civil Ap...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Baleshwar Kumar Ravi and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
S. Mukherjee, J.1. This matter relates to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant against the order and judgment dated 27.6.2005 passed in G.R. No. 698 of 2001/ Tr. No. 2650/2005 by Sri Saniay Kumar Singh. Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Patna, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate bad acquitted the respondent-accused Baleshwar Kumar Ravi for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that last date for filing Government appeal was 25.9.2005. The delay has been caused in the following manner.2. It has been stated by the appellant that total time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment was 19 days inclusive of 7 days spent in obtaining first certified copy of the impugned judgment which on perusal was found to be defective and additional period of 12 days was spent in obtaining a correct certified copy of the judgment.3. It has been submitted that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Latiffur Rahman Beg and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Intermediate Education Council and the learned J.C. to S.C. No. 17 for the State.2. The petitioners have case to this Court originally for a direction upon the respondents to recogniee/effilisate to the petitioners College which fulfills all criteria to be recognised and also for further consequential reliefs. During the pendency of this writ application an order dated 12.4.2005 (Anneexure-13) was passed by the Intermediate Education Council by which the permission to enroll students in Science faculty which had been granted earlier for a limited period was withdrawn by the counc1l with respect to the petitioners College. By Interlocutory Application No. 1831 of 2006 the said order was challenged and learned Counsel for the petitioners has confined his submission only with respect to the quashing of the said Anne...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar Mishra Vs. Pradeep Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.7.1988 and decree dated 20.7.1988 passed by Sri Narendra Bahadur Verma, District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Title Appeal No. 58 of 1986 whereby he has been pleased to confirm the judgment dated 6.9.1986 and decree dated 19.9.1986 passed by Sri Sheo Shankar Singh, Additional Munsif in Title Suit No. 29 of 1982 / 57 of 1986 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree has preferred this second appeal.2. The brief facts which gave rise to filing of this second appeal are as follows:Plaintiff-appellant Uma Shankar Mishra alias Lakshman Jee filed Title Suit No. 29 of 1982 in the court of the Munsif, Nalanda at Biharsharif for declaration of his right, title and interest and confirmation of his possession with respect to the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint and also for restraining th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lochan Sharan Vs. Sri Balmukund Yadav and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J1. This is an application against an order by which the petitioner's application to intervene and be added as a party to the suit has been rejected by the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for correction of revisional survey entry and consequently for declaration of their right, title and interest and possession in the property in question. The defendants were the State of Bihar and the Anchal Adhikari as well as the Gram Panchayat concerned. The intervener wants to intervene in the said suit on the grosdund that the land in question is a public pathway and he has a right to use the said land and he had been using that land since long. He had moved the State for removal of encroachment made by the plaintiffs. A proceeding for encroachment had been initiated and, accordingly, he was a necessary party in the suit. The plaintiffs have appeared before this Court. Heard the parties.3. Having considered the rival submissions, it is apparent that the in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »