Patna Court April 2007 Judgments
Mosomat Jago Devi Vs. Mahabir Prasad Joshi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27th April, 2001 and award dated 17th May, 2001 passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 1994 by Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Lai, 1st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur whereby he has been pleased to reject the claim application filed on behalf of the claimant.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The present appellant (Most. Jago Devi) filed claim case bearing Claim Case No. 24 of 1994 claiming an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation on account of death of her husband (Mohan Sah) caused in motor vehicle accident which took place on 27.2.1994 at about 10 A.M. at Mundichak. It is said that at the time of accident the deceased (Mohan Sah) had gone to Mini Market at Mundichak where a truck bearing registration No. B.R. 12-H 2252 dashed him and thereafter he received severe injury and he was removed to the hospital but within few hours he collapsed in course of treatment. F...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar Veterinary Association and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Himanshu Kumar, learned JC to Government Advocate No. V, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash Office Order No. 3/M 2-5-Bhatta/12/99-Part 10, dated 20.3.2001 (Annexure 1), whereby the non-practising allowance being paid to the Veterinary doctors of the Bihar Government has been withdrawn.2. The facts are not at all in dispute. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be an Association of the veterinary doctors of the Government of Bihar, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 claim to be its members and are serving the State Government as veterinary doctors. It view of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission read with the report of the Fitment Committee, the State Government. had allowed non-practising allowance every month to the veterinary doctors in lieu of the prohibition not to engage themselves in private practice as per the detailed terms and conditions stipulated in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Mishree Lal Sah and Most. Badamo Devi Vs. Jagarnath Sah (Dead) Represe ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. Second Appeal No. 202 of 1990 and Second Appeal No. 250 of 1991 were heard analogous as common question of law was involved in both the second appeals and, as such, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. The judgment is being delivered in Second Appeal No. 202 of 1990.2. Second Appeal No. 202 of 1990 has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.3.90 passed by the 4th additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No. 53/86 whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant Mishri Lal Sah against the judgment dated 30th April, 1986 passed by Sri K.M. Srivastava, Sub-Judge IInd, Chapra, in Title Suit No. 66 of 1983 whereby he had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.3. Second Appeal No. 250 of 1991 has been preferred against the judgment dated 7th February, 1991, passed by Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha No. II, 3rd Additional District Judge, Saran, Chapra, in Title Appeal No. 88 of 1986 whereb...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Travels Rep. by G.P. Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Madhavendra Saran, J.1. In this miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) prayer has been made for quashing the order dated April 16, 1996 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 384(M)/96, by which he has taken cognizance under Section 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968.2. It appears that on April 16, 1996 Abhijeet Kumar, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners in the Court of C.J.M., Patna for the offence punishable under Section 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968 on the ground that on October 26, 1995 the firm of the petitioners named Arya Travels was inspected and observed the following:(i) The following notices have not been displayed in English and in the language of the majority of the perso...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Chaudhary Vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Aftab Alam, J.1. This writ petition, filed in public interest, brings to the notice of the Court certain practice being followed by the trial Courts in this State (Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Judicial Magistrates) that is patently illegal, besides being highly undesirable from a social point of view. It is stated that the Trial Courts have all but stopped using the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; that even when the lower. Courts proceed under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, in cases few and far between, they do so without calling for a report from the Probation Officer and thus act in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act, further that the Trial Courts mostly act under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') taking it as a substitute and an alternate to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a retired Principal Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Udho Rai and ors. Vs. Ambika Tiwary and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
1. A suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a plot of land for one single consideration was filed by the appellants against five defendants. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been upheld by the first appellate Court in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. Hence this Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The admitted facts of the case are that defendant Nos. 1 and 5, who are brothers, got a piece of land under a deed of gift. Defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement for sale alone with the appellants. In the agreement for sale the defendant No. 1 held out to the appellants that by virtue of the said gift he alone received the entire chunk of land, which he proposed to sell for a single consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequent thereto on 10th February, 1974 defendants No. 1 and 5 sold the entire chunk of land received by them under the said gift to the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4. Plain...
Tag this Judgment!Achalesh Nandan Vs. National Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner initially filed this writ petition questioning the failure of the Respondent National Institute of Technology, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the NIT) to call him for appearing in the interview pursuant to Advertisement No. NITT/Apt. 01/2005 dated 20.5.2005, Annexure-8 for the two post of Lecturer in Architecture on the ground that the said omission of NIT is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution as the NIT ignored the fact that the petitioner possessed minimum qualification for the post, namely, 1st Class Bachelor's degree in Architecture and yet was not called to appear in the interview pursuant to Advertisement, Annexure-8.3. During the pendency of this application, Private Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were appointed as Lecturer in response to the advertisement, Annexure-8 in Architecture, vide notification dated 6.12.2005, Annexure-12 issued by the NIT and by filing amendment petition, petit...
Tag this Judgment!Sachidanand Lal Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was working as the Head Clerk in the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur. On 20th June, 1986 he was transferred as such Head clerk from the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer to the Office of the Anchal Adhikari, Katra Anchal, Muzaffarpur. On 14th August, 1986, the Sub Divisional Officer issued a relieving order in favour of the petitioner. There is no dispute that subsequent thereto the petitioner did join the Office of the Anchal Adhikari as Head Clerk. While the petitioner was discharging his duties of Head Clerk at the Office of the Anchal Adhikari, he was but under suspension by an order dated 4th May, 1987. In this order of suspension, it was indicated that the petitioner is being put under suspension for the petitioner despite requests failed to hand over charge of the Office of Head Clerk attached to the Office of the Sub Divisional officer upon his transfer and that when the Office of the An...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendra Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
A.K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner the respondent. Electricity Board and the State.2. According to the petitioner on a departmental proceeding initiated against him enquiry was held and the enquiry officer after detailed analysis of evidence which had come in the same, concluded that both the charges brought against the proceedee are not established/proved.3. The petitioner states that thereafter notice dated 22.11.2002 contained in annexure-22 was issued against him. This has been issued in the background that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and therefore a notice was issued to him against the same said disagreement. This notice has however found fault according to the petitioner because the disciplinary authority by virtue of this notice has also stated the proposed punishment which was contemplated to be imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.4. The petitioner, therefore, submits that thi...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Sayum Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Navin Sinha, J.1. The viscera in cases of unnatural death is crucial in criminal jurisprudence. Chapter 10 and 42 of the Bihar Police Manual contain detailed guidelines.2. This Court while hearing bail applications has come across several cases, where the viscera and the need for its report has been treated with great disdain both by the Investigating Authorities and the Medical Authorities. The non-availability of the viscera can prove prejudicial to the prosecution. The delay in transportation and examination of viscera can produce flawed results.3. The present is a case where the Doctor carrying out the post-mortem found no apparent cause of death. A definite opinion regarding cause of the death was reserved till receipt of the viscera report. The viscera report never came. The charge sheet came to be submitted without the report.4. This Court in the circumstances required the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur and the Medical Officer Incharge of the Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »