Court : Patna
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment dated 15.12.1989 and the decree dated 3.1.1990 passed by Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava, District Judge, Sitamarhi in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1988 reversing the judgment dated 11.8.1988 passed by Sri Ram Prabodh Singh, Subordinate Judge I, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 103 of 1986 whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiffs-appellants had preferred Title Suit No. 103 of 1986 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Sitamarhi for declaration that the sale deed dated 19.7.1986 executed by defendant No. 2 Laxmi Sah in favour of defendant No. 1 Gauri Shankar Choudhary with respect to the suit land was a forged and fabricated document and the same was of without consideration and not binding upon the plaintiffs-appellants. They had also sought relief for issuing injunction for re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The four appellants herein are aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 4th July 1992 passed by Sri Mandhata Singh, the then 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 48/200 of 1981/87, whereby and whereunder the four appellants have been found guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323, IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147, IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The four appellants along with one Chandrika Dubey (since deceased) were charged under Sections 304/34, 325/34, 323/147 and 447, IPC on the allegation that on 3-12-1978 at village Bhandar, P.S. Dhaka in the District of East Champaran they committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of Kapildeo Dubey in furtherance of common intention of them all, and in course thereof ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 3 despite valid service of notice.2. The short question for consideration in this case is, if the respondent No. 2, Deputy Labour Commissioner, was competent to hear the Workmen compensation Case No. 6/2001 instituted by the respondent No. 3 when the petitioner had questioned the status as a workman of the petitioner.3. In pursuance of institution of the compensation case by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner entered appearance and contested her status denying that she was a workman under the petitioner. The proceedings are pending. The challenge is to the jurisdictional aspect of the proceeding.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 19 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') if a question arises as to whether a person is a workman or not in respect of the compensation claimed under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 5th December, 1992 passed by Sri R.A. Singh, the then 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1988 has preferred this appeal. By the impugned order the sole appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.2 The prosecution case can be culled out from the fard beyan given by one Naimulla at 6 A.M. on 8.4.1987 at the Sadar Hospital, Siwan which was in respect of an occurrence which took place in the preceeding night. According to the informant his father Md. Sammi as Surpunch of Gram Panchayat, Bhelpur had imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- upon the appellant herein prior to the instant occurrence as the appellant was found to have committed rape on the daughter of one Chandrama Sah and as such he bore a grudge against the Surpunch. It is said that in the midnight of 7/8th April, 1987...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. This application has been filed to quash the order dated 2.6.2006 passed by C.J.M., Kishanganj in Bahadurganj P.S. Case No. 16 of 2006 thereby and thereunder cognizance under Section 366(A) of the I.P.C. has been taken against both the petitioners.3. As per allegation, the petitioners forcibly kidnapped the daughter of the informant Punam Kumari who was said to be aged about 14 years. The informant is mother of the victim. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet and, accordingly, the court below has taken cognizance against both the petitioners.4. Annexure-3 is the statement of the victim Punam Kumari recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In that very statement, she has given her age about 20 years. The court has also assessed her age 20 years. She has not only completely denied the allegation of kidnapping but has also stated that she with her own accord and free will has married with petitioner Prajapati Saran and is leading happy married li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. Shorn of verbiage, the petitioners' objection is to the posting of employees/officers of the Geology Directorate, even on adhoc basis or as working arrangement, as Assistant Mining Officer or Deputy Director, Mines that, according to them, are posts belonging to the Directorate of Mines.2. Petitioner No. 1 before the Court is described as Bihar Mining Engineering Service Association; it is represented through its General Secretary. Petitioners 2 and 3 are individual employees. Petitioner No. 2 was posted as Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna and petitioner No. 3 as Assistant Mining Officer (Incharge), District Mining Office, Purnea. They seek to challenge, a few, among a series of notifications, dated 28.10.2005 by which a number of employees/officers of the Mining Department were posted at different places. The petitioners are aggrieved by notification Nos. 2055M, 2056M, 2058M, 2059M and 2060M. By notification No. 2055M, respondent No. 6 who was posted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, in Case No. 78 of 1986 upholding the order of the appellate authority of the Additional Collector, Saharsa, in CA No. 52 of 1983-84, on the ground that the impugned orders are bad in law as the petitioner was not a party before the first revenue authority, i.e., Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC), and, therefore, the subsequent orders are required to be quashed and set aside.2. Let there be narration of conspectus of the factual profile giving rise to this petition. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 claimed for pre-emption by filing a case under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961') before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, (LRDC), Birpur, in Ceiling Case No. 9 of 1982-83, in respect of a parcel of land having an are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and award passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, under which he has held the owner (respondent No. 3) and the insurer (appellant) of the offending vehicle No. BHF-1343 liable to pay jointly and severally Rs. 86, 800/- to the claimants as compensation and has directed them to pay the amount after deduction of adinterim compensation already paid, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum within 60 days of the order and has further directed that in case of their failure to pay the amount they shall be further liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of compensation.2. Learned Counsel for all the parties were heard. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the motor vehicle Act of 1939 is applicable as the accident had occurred on 19.9.1984 before coming into force of the motor vehicle Act of 1988, and Section 95(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
C.M. Prasad, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 17-12-2002 of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra passed in Sessions Trial No. 504/ 01/267/01 whereby each of the three appellants has been convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months.2. It has to be mentioned here that one accused, namely, Lalan Rai was also tried along with the appellants by the trial Court for the charge but he was acquitted and the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above.3. The prosecution commenced with the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant Vidhan Rai. The fardbeyan was recorded by the S.I. B. Kumar of Parsa P.S. on the statement of the informant on 25-8-1999 at 8 p.m. The informant stated that on 25-8-1999 at 5 p.m. while he (informant) along with his father Rameshwar Rai (victim) were sitting on chairs in his Dalan and while they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2000 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 16/85 under which he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1985 passed by the 2nd Munsif, Buxar in Title Suit No. 125/75 and has remanded the suit for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.2. The grounds on which the suit has been remanded are that the learned Munsif has not discussed the oral evidence adduced by the parties and the Munsif has failed to frame an issue whether the suit property mentioned in Schedule I was the property of Olayat Khan and Gul Mohammad which was essential for the decision of the case with regard to Schedule I property.3. It appears that though notices were served on the respondents, only respondents No. 2 to 5 had entered appearance in this appeal and as regards respondent No. 7, Noor Mohammad Khan it was reported that he was dead. Accordingly, the application was fil...
Tag this Judgment!