Patna Court July 2007 Judgments
Hemkant Jha and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. All these 16 matters have been heard together because they involve common questions of law and facts. Except the matter in LPA No. 644 of 2006 all other matters have been admitted for hearing pursuant to an order of remand passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5845 of 2004 and other analogous appeals. By that order the judgments passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals of the employees was set aside only on the ground that one of the learned Judges who decided the appeals had also heard and decided some of the writ petitions of some of the appellants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the matters to this Court for hearing and disposal by a Bench of Judges who had not dealt with the concerned writ petitions sitting singly. Thereafter, those matters were admitted for hearing by an order dated 7.11.2006 in view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. DT...
Tag this Judgment!Lalita Kumari and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. Etc. Etc.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Mridula Mishra, J.1. In all these writ applications petitioners are claiming for their selection as Anganbari Sewika/Sahaika or challenging the order cancelling their selection by the respondents. Petitioners have also challenged the procedure adopted for selection/ removal of Anganbari Sewika/Sahaika on the ground that in violation of thee guidelines of the government, selection/removal orders have been passed. Almost in all cases petitioned have stated that their representations filed before the Collector or the D.D.C. is pending for long and not being considered. In some of the writ applications petitioners have challenged the procedure adopted for selection of Anganbari/ Sewika/Sahaika. In some of the cases selection of the petitioners have been rejected by the respondents considering representation filed before the Collector or the D.D.C. In sum and substance all matters relate to selection as Anganbari Sewika/Sahaika.2. Allegations in almost all the writ applications are similar...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order of cognizance dated 13.6.2005 passed by C.J.M., Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 436 of 2002 thereby cognizance under Section 3 of prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 has been taken against this petitioner and others.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State.3. It appears from the fardbevan that on 9.12.2002, the informant Executive Magistrate was directed to remove illegal display of posters etc. on electrical pole in between Lalit Bhawan to Dank Bunglow Chouraha. Accordingly, he inspected the area and seized Banner and Poster displayed on electric poles. Several Posters and Banners were found displayed on electric pole by NIIT, Swift Jyoti. This petitioner is a Director of NIIT.4. It is submitted on behalf of the learned Counsel that prosecution of the petitioner under the above provision of Prevention of Damage of Public...
Tag this Judgment!Guleshwar Pasban and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 27th January, 1988 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 698/86 arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 60/86, G.R. No. 160/86/By the said judgment, appellant No. 1-Guleshwar Pasban has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life besides conviction under Section 148 with sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12, Ishwar Pasban, Jugal Pasban, Madan Pasban, Ramasis Pasban, Bisheshwar Pasban and Nawal Pasban, respectively, have been convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I. under each of the heads. Appellants Nos. 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Manik Pasban, RamBriksha Pasban alias Briksha Pasban, Issar Pasban, Jai Pasban, Sheo Balak Pasban, Lakhan Pasban and Anandi Pasban, respectively, have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Agrawal Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Heard.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 8.9.1995 passed by C.J.M. Patna as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 721 of 1992 now pending in the court of Shri Bharat Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class Patna thereby cognizance under Section 49(g) & (h) of Bihar Finance Act has been taken against the petitioner and others.2. The petitioner along with others have been prosecuted by department of Commercial Tax for evasion of sales tax on lottery tickets. The petitioner is proprietor of M/s Vijay Agency. The case has been registered on the basis of fardbeyan lodged by Deputy Commercial Taxes, Investigation Bureau.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised several points against the prosecution of the petitioner under sales tax provisions including limitation, jurisdiction of police to investigate and non-assess ability of sales tax on Lottery tickets. It is submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Baleshwar Singh @ Balkeshwar Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti Kumari
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Both the civil revision applications relate to the same issues and they have, accordingly, been heard together and are now being disposed of by this common order.2. Civil Revision No. 918 of 2004 has been filed against the order dated 4.12.2003 passed by the Subordinate Judge-IV, Begusarai in T.S. No. 85 of 2001, by which the application of the opposite party under Order 10 Rule 1A, 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.3. Civil Revision No. 908 of 2004 has been filed against the order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge-IV, Begusarai in the said Title Suit No. 85 of 2001, by which he has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner under Order 47, Rule 1 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review and recall of the order dated 4.12.2003.4. The facts relevant to the determination of the controversy involved herein are that the plaintiff opposite party filed Title Suit No. 85 of 2001 for specific performa...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Bhagat Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. The short question which has emerged in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether there should be pre-emption or no pre-emption, challenging the order of the appellate Court recorded in Ceiling Appeal No. 21 of 1983-84/ 67 of 1985-86, whereby, the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR), dated 29.8.1983, in Case No. 40 of 1982, came to be reversed, while allowing the appeal and the decision of the appellate Court came to be confirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 25th May, 1987,passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in case No. 67 of 1986.2. The present petitioner is the original applicant who claimed the benefit of right of pre-emption under Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (' The Act of 1961'), by filing an application before the DCLR (East), Muzffarpur, (respondent No. 3), on 6.9.1982, pursu...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumari Devi Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a police case under Section 302, 328, 498A/34 of the Penal Code.3. The petitioner is stated to be the second wife. The deceased was the first wife. The first information report itself acknowledges peaceful coexistence of the deceased with the petitioner for 15 years.4. The submission from the case diary is that the deceased committed suicide of her own volition. The post-mortem report records that there is no external or internal injury on the body of the deceased.5. This Court had called for the viscera report preserved on 8.6.2005. Paragraph 71 of the case diary which contains the post-mortem report dated 8.6.2005 states that the viscera shall be destroyed after six months. This Court queried with regard to the result of the viscera, which was preserved for examination, when an affidavit was filed by the Investigating Officer that there have been severa...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 20.1.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Revision No. 45/2007 thereby the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 504/2004 whereunder the prayer for release of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.3. The petitioner is one of the accused in the aforesaid police case registered under Sections 366/363/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner surrendered before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 14.5.2005 and was remanded to jail custody on the same day. However. even after lapse of Sixty days no charge-sheet was submitted by the police. It was submitted only on 22.7.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner on 16.8.20...
Tag this Judgment!Sudheshwar Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the challenge is against the order of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3314 of 2006, recorded on 23.3.2006, whereby the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be dismissed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage in greater details and with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of. We have evaluated the factual profile of the case. We have also considered the submissions, as well as, the merits of the impugned order dispassionately.2. With a view to appreciate the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal, let there be a short conspectus of important and relevant facts leading to the rise of this appeal. The appellant original writ petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 24.2.2006 contained in memo No. 4/B-6-102/2004-249/Gri.Sa.Ko. published...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »