Patna Court August 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.
Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Limited Vs. the State of Bihar and o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard.2. By the present writ application the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the Departmental Tender Committee dated 13.4.2006 by which it has decided to consider the technical bid of respondent No. 10 notwithstanding Clause 21 of the notice inviting tender. Consequent to that the technical bird of respondent No. 10 was accepted instead of being declared ineligible and disqualified. Primarily the question is with regard to scope and ambit of Clause 21 of the notice inviting tender which is quoted hereinafter:21. The tenderers against whom departmental black listing process are going on or the tenderers whose working and conduct are ambiguous will not be considered for allotment of work during decision of tender.3. State has filed counter-affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. The private -respondent No. 10 is represented by Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel and a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of private respon...
Central Bank of India and anr. Vs. Laxman Wire Industries Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. The present application is by the defendants in the Court below against order dated 31.8.2006 passed by Sub Judge XI, Patna in Title Suit No. 49 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff opposite party. By the aforesaid order, the learned trial Court refused to decide the question of maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.2. The primary ground of attack to the maintainability of the suit is based on Sections 17 and 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.3. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant-Central Bank of India, the petitioner before this Court and Shri Binay Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff, opposite party before this Court.4. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant petitioner that in view of the provisions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, it was open to the plaintiff opposite par...
Kapildeo Prasad and anr. Vs. Ramanand Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard Shri S.S. Dwivedi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants petitioners and Shri Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-opposite parties.2. The present application is directed against order dated 22.9.2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Bettiah in Partition Suit No. 73 of 2004 by which he has rejected the defendants-petitioners' application for rejection of plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (In short 'CPC').3. In substance the defendants-petitioners' claim is that the plaintiffs-opposite parties had earlier filed a Partition Suit as against the defendants-petitioners. In the said Partition Suit, the defendants-petitioners appeared and filed a detailed written statement, inter alia, taking the stand that the properties in question had already been partitioned earlier. There was nothing to partition. Thereafter, when the said suit was taken up for hearing,...
Pashupati Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and JC to SC 15.2. Initially, this writ application was filed challenging the orders, as contained in Annexures 1 and 2, whereby and whereunder an inquiry report was called for pertaining to the application filed by Mrs. Saraswati Devi, wife of this petitioner and payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped. Subsequently, an order, as contained in Annexure 4 dated 15-6-2001 was issued directing for deduction of one third pay of the petitioner payable to his first wife Mrs. Saraswati Devi.3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the order, contained in Annexure 4, is wholly without jurisdiction, as there was no provision in law to deduct one third salary of the petitioner payable to his first wife. It is also contended that the respondent authorities assumed the jurisdiction of the competent authority as prescribed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and. therefore, the order impugned is not sustai...
Md. Zafir Mian Alias Md. Zafir Alam and ors. Vs. Sk. Mansoor Alam and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. R.K. Verma for the appellants, and Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh for the respondents.2. The defendants are the appellants against a judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2001, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Title Appeal No. 84 of 1995 (Md. Zafir Mian and Ors. v. SK. Mansoor Alam and Ors.), whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants, and has upheld the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1995, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Bettrah, in Title Suit No. 227 of 1988 (Eviction) (Sk. Mansoor Alam and Ors v. Sk. Jafir Mian and Ors.). The learned trial court had decreed the suit for eviction which has been upheld by the learned court of appeal below. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit-stating that plot Nos.2943, 2939, 2941 and 2938, 2935, 2944 are situate in the township ...
Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Ramesh Kr. Datta, J.1. Heard Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate No. 10 for the State.2. The petitioner has approached this Court for being granted similar benefits as were given to two other similar situated persons by order dated 14.3.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 569 of 1999 and for a further direction to the respondents to put the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits like other similarly situated persons.3. During 1980 under the National Education Policy of the Government of India, Vocational Education Scheme was introduced. Under the said Scheme 40 posts of the Laboratory Assistants were created by the State Government by order dated 8.11.1988 and the said posts were kept on being extended on year to year basis. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that on the direction of the then Minister of Education to the respondent No. 2, the Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, to make appointments on the sai...
Manilal Keshri and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, opposite party No. 2 as well as the State.2. The question involved in the present case is whether on completion of the investigation, submission of the chargesheet and order taking cognizance, supplementary chargesheet can be submitted without their being any fresh material for submission of second chargesheet and without any investigation in relation to the fresh material. Another question which has been raised is whether the supervision note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barh, will be deemed to be a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sufficient for submission of supplementary chargesheet.3. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order, dated 07.04.2004, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in Barh P.S. Case No. 186 of 2001 and also for quashing the supplementary Chargesheet No. 184 of 2003, dated 23.09.2003, on the basis of which cognizanc...
BipIn Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents-authorities to amend/delete the condition of examination imposed in selection of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Advertisement No. 1006 published in daily news paper dated 26.5.2006, as contained in Annexure-4 and further to advertise the selection of Junior Engineers in accordance with the rules and norms for apprenticeship trainees as laid down in the order of the Supreme Court and this Court and also to set aside the said advertisement to the extent of the requirement of holding of examination for those, who have received apprenticeship training.2. The petitioners claim to be Apprenticeship trainees a though no details regarding the institutions from which they had received the said training any other details in that regard are mentioned anywhere in the writ petition. Earlier, both the petitioners had filed C.W.J.C. No. 10477 of 1998 which was dismissed by order dated 16.9.1999 with a ...
Kunj Bihari Das Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, learned Counsel representing the State Advisory Committee. Also present are the J.C. to G.A. VIII representing the State of Bihar and Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee for the State of Jharkhand.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by allocation of his ser-vi.ce to the State of Jharkhand arid he seeks to challenge the communication dated 23.05.2006 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms intimating the Commissioner -cum- Secretary to the Government: in the Department of Finance about the allocation of the petitioner's service to that State.3. The relevant facts are simple and brief. The petitioner is in the cadre of Deputy Secretary. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Advisory Committee, it is stated that the sanctioned strength of the cadre is 34 in which the respective shares of the two States, Bih...
Umeshkant Pathak Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur under his memo No. 6120 dated 3.12.2004. The impugned order is in a printed format in which the relevant details concerning the petitioner were filled up. By this order, the petitioner is reverted to a Class-IV post 22 years after his promotion to a Class-III post. His reversion is on the ground that the promotion was allowed irregularly.2. The parties are in agreement that the facts of the case are fully covered by an earlier decision of this Court dated 5.1.1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 3706 of 1997 (Suresh Kumar Rajak v. The State of Bihar and Ors.). The decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed on 14.10.1998 by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No. 330 of 1998 and the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against those orders was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 15.02.1999 in SLP No. 00613 of 1999. Following the decision in the case of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »