Patna Court September 2007 Judgments
Shiv Chandra Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Office report is that the civil revision application against refusal to grant temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 2A would not lie to this Court, as against an order granting or refusing to grant injunction an appeal is provided in terms of Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the said miscellaneous appeal would lie to the District Judge or this Court, subject to valuation.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 115(1) CPC and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Vidya Vati v. Shri Devi Das since reported in AIR 1977 SC 397 the revision is maintainable in this Court because considering the valuation no appeal would lie to this Court. In other words, it is submitted that though an appeal lie to the District Judge, no appeal lie to this Court and that being so in terms of Section 115(1) CPC, revision is maintainable.3. I am afraid the lawyer is not correct.The judgment of the Apex Court was re...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar Bhagat and anr. Vs. C.M.D. Bsnl and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. I.A. No. 1086 of 2006 has been filed on behalf of Ram Bilash Sharma, the then Planning Officer, BSNL, Munger.2. In my view intervention petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed as such. If the intervene has any grievance against the respondents, he is at liberty to file a substantive independent writ application. Intervention to support the writ petition is not permissible.3. Thus, I. A. No. 1086 of 2006 is dismissed accordingly.4. Heard.5. The petitioners are approved contractors of Central Government, BSNL, Public Sector undertaking etc. They had several contracts with BSNL, who are party respondents in this writ petition and have appeared. It appears that upon suo motu direction of Superintendent of Police. CBI/A. C. B., Patna, a crime was registered against some BSNL officers along with the petitioners under Sections 120B and 420 IPC and, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the said crime being reg...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Pandey Vs. Vidyadhar Pandey and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The plaintiffs opposite party first set have been substituted in place of the original plaintiff. Some of the defendants on coming to know of this, challenged. The Court stayed its order permitting substitution. It initiated enquiry in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC. Plaintiffs opposite part first set claim to be nephews of original plaintiff. While leading evidence in support of their claim, they came up with a gift deed purportedly executed by the original plaintiff which contained a statement allegedly made by the original plaintiff showing the present plaintiffs opposite party first set to be her nephews. On this document being led in evidence, the objecting defendant wanted to amend his rejoinder thereby challenging the validity of this document and the statements contained therein. He alternatively prayed that this application of his may be treated as a rejoinder to the document brought in evidence. It is not disputed that this document had not earl...
Tag this Judgment!Sadre Alam Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Madhavendra Saran, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1993 passed by Sri B.B. Verma, 3rd Additional Session Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Session Trial No. 112/1990 arising out of Shikarpur PS case No. 25/1990 whereby he convicted appellant Sadre Alam Under Section 304 (part II) of Indian Penal Code (in short as Code) and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 10 years as also Under Section 323 of the Code for a period of three months. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that informant Kuer Yadav on 3.2.1990 at about 12 Noon when he returned back home from the distillery he was informed that appellant along with others was constructing house on his land. The informant went there and found that appellant had encroached his part of land in constructing the house. The informant requested the appellant to stop the construction as they had encroached part of his land but his request was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Prasad Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India.2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order terminating his service as Peon vide order dated 30.12.2003 contained in S.D.E. (Administration), Gaya, issued under the signature of respondent No. 3, S.D.E. (Administration) B.S.N.L. (Office of G.M.T.) Gaya. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service and to give temporary status in view of Government Circular No. 292/Reott/11/R.M./49 dated 20.9.2002.3. Petitioner's case is that he was engaged by the Telephone Department as casual Daily rated labourer to work as Peon in the Telephone Department in the year 2001 since then he was continuously performing his duty and regularly being paid his salary. Petitioner's claim is that he has continuously working for more than 800 days starting from the date of appointment till the date of termination.4. Petitioner is claimin...
Tag this Judgment!Anoj Kumar Mandal Alias Manoj Kumar Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Chandramauli Kumar Pd. and Rekha Kumari, JJ.1. Judgment and order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2000 inflicting the sentence of death to accused Anoj Kumar Mandal alias Manoj Kumar Mandal upon his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has necessitated this Reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said judgment and order Anoj Kumar Mandal alias Manoj Kumar Mandal has been found guilty under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was inflicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The said convict has also preferred appeal against the judgment and order of conviction which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2005. Both the appeal and the Reference were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The convict Anoj Kumar Mandal alias Manoj Kumar Mandal shall hereinafter be referred as appellant.2. Informa...
Tag this Judgment!Punam Kumari Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. It is submitted that the qualification of respondent No. 5 to stand for election as an extremely backward class candidate was challenged at the time of scrutiny as also thereafter before the State Election Commission. When first challenge was made, the Returning Officer did not decide the issue. When the second challenge before the Election Commission was made, it has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to go before the Election Tribunal. The legality and propriety of this order is under challenge. With the consent and after hearing the parties, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. To the objection by the respondents as to maintainability of this writ application in election matters, the reliance has rightly been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of Apex Court in the case of K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan and Anr. : [1999]2SCR857 . The Apex Court has clearly held that where t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Shankar Kumar Khetan Vs. Name Not Known, Widow of Late Ambika Pra ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
S.N. Hussain, J.1. This First Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 of Title Suit No. 18 of 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.1991, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Jehanabad, decreed the suit.2. The aforesaid Title Suit No. 18 of 1988 was filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 for the following reliefs: (A) It be adjudicated and declared that the impugned sale deeds dated 29.01.1988 and 30.01.1988 referred in the plaint are illegal, fraudulent, brought into existence under threat, coercion and undue influence and defendants No. 1 and 2 have acquired no title through the same and the same not being binding on the plaintiffs may be set aside.(B) Defendants be permanently restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and be restrained further from withdrawing the original sale deeds from the Registration Office to avoid multiplicity of litigation and future complication.(C) Cost of the suit.(D) Any other relief or reliefs.By sub...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Singh Vs. Manu Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below allowing the money appeal and reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed. 2. Money Suit No. 24 of 1982 was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant for realisation of Rs. 4,993.92 with interest (both pendentelite and future) and cost from defendant No. 1 (original respondent No. 1) claiming that at the instance of defendant No. l, the plaintiff gave him a loan of Rs. 3,672.00 for purchase of bullocks and for repair of his house and in token thereof defendant No. 1 executed a hand note on 21.06.1979 in favour of the plaintiff. He further claimed that the said loan was only an accommodation loan and he was not in money lending business. It was also asserted that defendant No. 2 undertook to repay the said amount with interest but inspite of plaintiff's demand and lapse of a long...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Ranjeet Singh Vs. the G.i.C. of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Barin Ghosh and Anwar Ahmad, JJ.1. Each of the respondents to the writ petition was working for gain outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition was a disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated and concluded outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The punishment, as was awarded to the appellant writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, was also inflicted outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Subsequent thereto, the appellant was transferred to Patna and as a result started working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court. He thereupon filed an application for review under Rule 39(1) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. This review application was filed by the appellant from Patna, within the jurisdiction of this Court, but to a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition. While the writ petition was pending the review application was reje...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›