Patna Court April 2007 Judgments

Mahanth Sarvesh Vs. the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal filed under the provision of Section 55 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) is directed against order dated 05.02.2001, by which the learned Additional District Judge VI. Patna, dismissed Misc. Case (Religious Trust Board) No. 56 of 1997, which was filed by the original appellant Mahanth Chandramani Das and affirmed order dated 15.07.1996, passed by the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (respondent No. 2), by which the original appellant was removed from the post of Trustee of the Trust in question in compliance of Section 28(2)(h)(iii) of the Act.3. The Trust in question is a famous and very important Trust, namely, Baba Bhikham Das Thakurbari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust' for the sake of brevity), situated in Mohalla Bakarganj. Bari Path in the hea...

Kumar Gyanendra Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. Petitioner is the student of Mithila Minority Dental College, Darbhanga, a college recognized by the Lalit Narayan Mishra University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') pursuing Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course (hereinafter referred to as the 'Course') which commenced in the year 1999 and earlier he was registered for such course by the University vide Registration No. 28931 of the year 2001. Pursuant to such registration, he appeared in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Bachelor of Dental Surgery Examination (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Examination') 2000, 2001 and 2002 and passed those examinations, as is evident from the mark-sheet granted by the University, as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to this application. Presently he was appearing in the final examination for which he was given Admit-Card, Annexure-5, perusal whereof indicates that his Roll Number for the said examina...

Kashi Nath Choudhary Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begusarai Town P.S. case No. 274 of 2000 dated 16.9.2000 registered under Sections 406/490/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Before giving the facts of the case it may be mentioned that petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 32733 of 2001 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.5.2002. The petitioner has filed a fresh application for quashing on 14.10.2003 vide Cr. Misc. No. 28734 of 2003. This application was also dismissed for non-prosecution by order of this Court dated 6.5.2003. The petitioner filed a restoration application vide Cr. Misc. No. 18504 of 2004 which was restored on 12.7.2004. Accordingly, this matter is now being finally disposed of.3. The petitioner is an advocate of the High Court and he is seeking for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding on the ground that after investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the said offence fi...

Lal Sahab Jha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

Reported in: (2008)1STJ33NULL

1. The applicant is physically handicapped, being blind, belonging to general category and as such had been appointed to a Group 'C' post against 3% quota reserved for handicapped persons, in the Railways. He was firstly appointed as substitute waterman in Group 'D' but subsequently he was made regular by order dated 15.11.1980. The applicant, qualified for a Group 'C post, thereafter had represented for his appointment as such, reserved for the handicapped persons and by order dated 01.07.1985 (Annexure-A/2) he was appointed in the post of Announcer, temporarily. Since there was no regular post of Announcer in the required pay scale of Rs. 260-400, on his giving joining report on 01.12.1985 he was directed to work as Inquiry Clerk which was in higher pay scale (Rs. 330-560). Though another handicapped person, with blindness, one Brij Lal was appointed against the temporary post of clerk by order dated 04.07.1988, the applicant was denied that privilege, hence he represented again bef...

Kailash Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Abhijit Sinha, J.1. Appellant, Kailash Yadav, alongwith Rajendra Yadav, Shiv Yadav and Bilash Thakur faced trial of alleged offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. That apart Whereas Kailash Yadav also faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 25(A) and 26 of the Arms Act, accused Shiv Yadav was also charged for commission of offence under Section 412 of the I.P.C. Shri Someshwar Nath Pathak the then 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, who was in seisin of the trial by his Judgment and order dated 26.8.1992 recorded a verdict of conviction of Kailash Yadav only holding him guilty of offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(A) and 26 of the Arms Act and acquitted and discharged the other three accused. Convict Kailash Yadav was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 392 of the I.P.C. and two years rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act. No separate sentence was imposed f...

Mithila Minority Dental College and Hospital and ors. Vs. the State of ...

Court: Patna

Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application for quashing the entire proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 7.3.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1475/2002 filed by Opposite Party No. 2, namely, M/S Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. and order was passed for issuance of summons against the petitioner.2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is the Company under the Companies Act and is being represented through its Branch Incharge who is competent to file and contest the complaint case on behalf of the Company Petitioner No. 1, who is accused No. 1 in the present case approached the complainant (O.P. 2002) for financing one Ashok Leyland Super passenger Carrier vehicle. The complainant was assured by the accused persons, including petitioners No. 2 and 3 that the complainant's money along with upto date interest shall be return...

Ramchandra Mahto and anr. Etc. Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

1. Both the appeals arise out of same judgment dated 7th of March, 2002 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 18/1999/13/2000. Both the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 321 of 2002 have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each or in default to further RI for two years. The sole appellant of the other appeal namely, Prabhu Mahto has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and awarded the same sentence.2. The prosecution case as contained in fardbeyan of Ram Sunder Prasad Sah (P.W. 11) recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Anil Kumar (P.W. 13) at 5.00 a.m. on 25-9-1998 at the door of the informant is to the effect that in the previous night i.e. the night between 24 and 25th September, 1998 at about 1.30 accused Shambhoo Mahto, son of accused Ram Chandra Mahto, a co-villager came to informant's Darwaza for hiring a jeep vehicle and for that he called son of the inform...

Siya Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Most. Longia Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 1st September, 1984, passed by Sri D.P.S. Choudhary, 1st Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Patna, in Title Suit No. 193 of 1975 whereby the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge has been pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) seeking 1/4th share in the properties mentioned in Schedule-II to IV to the plaint. The present appellants were intervenor- defendant Nos. 16 to 23 in the Title suit.2. The plaintiff Rajendra Singh and others (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) had brought Title Suit No. 193 of 1975 in the Court of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Patna, for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-II to IV of the plaint and for carving of separate Takhta in respect of his share by appointing survey knowing Pleader Commissioner.3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the plaintiffs and original defendants are members of Hindu joint family governing...

Vibhash Raj and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

A.K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondents.2. There are six petitioners before this Court. All of them were aggrieved because they were not selected as constables (General Duty) in Border Security Force pursuant to the advertisement which was issued by the respondents. The recruitment was for the year 2001. All these petitioners were declared unfit medically but they made grievance that the medical test conducted on them was not in order and they have been treated in a slip-shod manner. They challenged the decision of the respondent authorities to declare these petitioners unqualified for appointment based on ground of medical unfitness. This Court vide order dated 26.3.2004 directed constitution of a fresh Medical Board for re-examination of these petitioners by newly constituted medical Board.3. The writ application was kept pending awaiting the decision of the newly constituted Medical Board.4. It is stated that register...

Hasanpur Chini Mill Mazdoor Union and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents 3 and 4.2. Petitioner No. 2 came to this Court with a grievance that he was the president of the Trade Union petitioner No 1. The Trade Union has its own bye-laws. Under the bye-laws the period of office of an elected union is for three years. The petitioner No. 2 was functioning as the President alongwith other office bearers in pursuance of their having been so elected. Certain other members of the Executive Committee, created controversy, locked the union office and did not allow the office bearers to enter the office to discharge their respective duties. Petitioner No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 29 of 2001 before the Court of Munsif, at Rosera, for declaration that the Union represented by him was the sole and correct representative of the Union and authorised office bearers. During pendency of the suit the Registrar, Trade Un...