Patna Court April 2007 Judgments

Bhadai Bari and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

1. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27-5-2002 passed by Fast Track Judge III (Additional Sessions Judge), Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial Nos. 223 of 1992/140 of 2001, appellant No. 1, Bhadai Bari, has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and further he along with appellants No. 2, Shiv Behari Bari and appellant No. 3, Lal Behari Bari, has been convicted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for which they have been awarded R1 for life. No separate sentence under Section 302 IPC has been passed against appellant No. 1.2. The prosecution case as contained in the Fardbeyan of Kusma Devi (PW3) recorded within four hours of the occurrence at her village, is to the effect that on 12-7-1991 at about 6.00 a.m. she was at her Darwaza tying the cattle and all the accused persons arrived in the field in front of her Darwaza and started with the work of cutting the ridge. This was protested by her husband, Tuntun Bari (the deceased). Exchange of hot words and abu...

Umesh Raj Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and State.2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga, confirming the resolution dated 23-6-2006 (Annexure-13) relating to Musharigharari Bus Stand. By this decision, Reserve Jama for the settlement of bus stand established on the Raiyati land of the petitioner has been enhanced in the midst of the settlement and it has also been resolved that the settlement may be made by open bid.3. Petitioner's case Is that under the provisions of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, a proposal came for establishing bus Stand at Musharigharari, offers were invited. Petitioner offered his Raiyati land for establishing bus stand as provided under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules 1992. Petitioner was selected for this purpose and at total Reserve Jama with tot...

Bishambhar Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

S.M.M. Alam, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment dated 5.2.2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2001/12 of 2001 whereby he has been pleased to remand the entire suit for fresh decision without giving any finding on any issues discussed by the trial court.2. The learned Advocate of the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment submitted that the said order of the appellate court is illegal. The learned Advocate submitted that in the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') there are three provisions contemplating remand by the court of appeal. The said provisions are contained under Rules 23, 23A and 25 of Order XLI of C.P.C. and since the order of remand is not in accordance with the provisions contained under the abovementioned rules, as such the same is bad in law and must be set aside. The learned Advocate further submitted that by the impugned judgment, the suit was rem...

Ramjit Pathak and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Shiva Kirti Singh and Subash Chandra Jha, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28th May, 2002, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Fast Track Court at Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 1981/260 of 2001, arising out of Mairwa P.S. case No. 12/80 dated 13.11.80. Appellant No. 1 Ramjit Pathak has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. He has also been convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 324/149 I.P.C. and awarded R.I. for two years for each offence. Appellants No. 2 to 5, namely, Kanhaiya Pathak, Rabindra Pathak, Yogendra Pathak and Jitendra Pathak, have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 324/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. They have been awarded sentence of R.I. for one year, six months and three months respectively for the said offences.2. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of Kedar Pa...

Pratap H. Desai and ors. (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (2008)116TT(JP.)at957

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A). The assessee has raised the following grounds: (i) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing set off and carry forward of loss of earlier years amounting to Rs. 40,00,529 out of which a sum of Rs. 13,22,068 was to be set off against income of the year under consideration and remaining sum of Rs. 26,78,461 was to be carried forward. (ii) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of set off and carry forward of loss and the same is contrary to facts and settled legal position. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that set off and carry forward of losses determined in earlier years have to be given effect to while computing the income as per provisions of the IT Act. (iii) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the grounds regarding charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234D amounting to Rs. 1,86,331 and Rs. 1,382. (iv) For that interest under Section...

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs. State and ors.

Court: Patna

Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application against the revisional order of the Board of Revenue by which his pre-emption application, which stood accepted and allowed by D.C.L.R. and Collector has been set aside.2. The private respondents i.e. purchasers have appeared and filed counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the vendor.3. Having heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.4. The petitioner submits that his step brother, who is the vendor, executed two sale deeds on 27-12-1984 being sale deed No. 10123 in respect of 1.11 acres of land appertaining to plot No. 3495 and sale deed No. 10124 for an area of 1.11 acres appertaining to plot No. 3494. Thus the total land sold by the vendor to the purchaser was of 2.22 acres by two sale deeds, which were both registered simultaneously. On coming to know of the aforesaid, pre-emption application was filed. Pertinent to note th...

Smt. Chandra Sharma and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors. ...

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since common questions of facts and law are involved, they have been heard simultaneously, and are, now, being disposed of by this common judgment, upon consensus, and joint request made by the counsels appearing for the parties.2. In all these writ petitions, the factual profile in each case may be different, but the main questions of some of facts and law in the light of the factual panorama are revolving round as to whether the appointment of the petitioners in the respective Colleges under respective Universities could be said to be legal or illegal, or, regular or irregular, for the purpose of consideration and determination of the claim for regularization of their services in respective Colleges on different cadres and posts of class III and IV viz. Assistant, Laboratory Technician, Library Assistant, Sorter (Class III), Clerk, Computer Programmer, Audio Visual Technician, Physical...

Mozaffar Imam Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners of both the writ applications were working under Gandak Command Area Development Agency, Muzaffarpur. Eleven petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 9129 of 2006 were working as Treasure Guard, whereas two petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8555 of 2006 were working as Soil. Sampler. They have challenged the communication dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure-12/1) issued by the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar by virtue of which authorities under Gandak Command Area Development Agency were directed to remove the petitioners from service. Petitioners have also challenged the consequential order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure-15) by virtue of which the petitioners have been terminated.3. Case of the petitioners are that due to initiative of Late Fakruddin Ali Ahmad, the then Agriculture Minister, Government of India, Command Area Development Agencies came to be created in various States. Even in the State of Bihar...

Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

A.K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable after due selection under Indo-Tibetain Border Police Force. The offer of appointment is contained in annexure-A. The petitioner thereafter reported for training on 24.10.2003 and was attached with 12th Battalian On 24.10.2003 he complained of fever and therefore was admitted to the Academy Hospital on 28.3.2003. When he did not respond to the treatment he was referred to Doon Hospital, a Government Hospital. The doctors carried out investigation and from the reports it was established that the petitioner was suffering from Pleural Effusion i.e. Tuberclosis. After four to five days stay in Doon Hospital the petitioner was sent to home.3. Subsequently an order dated 4.2.2004 was issued to the petitioner and by virtue of this order his offer letter with regard to appointment was withdrawn. The reason given for such decision was his illness which was confirmed on due medical investiga...

Dipanker Dutt Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. The three petitioners of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') are the three named accused of Complaint Case No. 795 (C) of 2000 pending before the SDJM. Patna. They have prayed for quashing of order dated 31-10-2005 passed by learned SDJM, Patna whereby he has rejected the objection raised by the petitioners to the continuation of complaint case in any Court at Patna on the ground of jurisdiction.2. It appears that earlier the petitioners had moved this Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Code and the said Cr. Misc. No. 24014 of 2001 was disposed of by this Court on 2-1-2002 vide Annexure-1. This Court on that occasion allowed the prayer of the accused persons, the petitioners, for representation through lawyer as per Section 205 of the Code. But so far as the prayer for quashing of criminal case on account of lack of jurisdiction was concerned, it relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the...