Patna Court March 2008 Judgments
Smt. Jasbir Kaur @ Raj Rani and anr. Vs. Rabindra Kumar Yadav and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
S.N. Hussain, J.1. This civil revision has been filed by defendants-petitioners under the Proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity) challenging order/judgment of their eviction dated 24.08.2006 by which the learned Munsif III, Patna, decreed Eviction Suit No. 59 of 1994.2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole-plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 for eviction of defendants-petitioners from the suit premises, namely two shop rooms detailed in Schedule I and Schedule III of the plaint which are portions of the building bearing holding No. 250/204A, Circle No. 7. Ward No. 10, situated at Station Road, P.S. Kotwali in the town and district of Patna on the grounds of personal necessity of the plaintiff, default in payment of rent and expiry of fixed term of tenancy.3. The plaintiffs claim in short was that he was the owner of the entire building detailed above, on t...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Holdings Private Limited Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of a public carrier truck No. HR55/1330 and while it was carrying for the work undertaken by the Company, cable wiring, machines and other articles and equipments to Bahadurganj in district-Kishanganj being the worksite of the petitioner-Company, the truck was seized by District Transport Officer (DTO), Purnea, respondent No. 2 who is respondent No. 3, in person at Zero Mile, Gulab Bagh in the district of Purnea on 04.04.2007. The writ petition was filed on 25.07.2007 as by then the said respondent had merely held back the truck seized and was not releasing the same. Thus, the writ application was ostensibly filed for release from illegal seizure and compensation for long, illegal detention of the truck. In course of the proceedings on 08.11.2007, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 2, the DTO Purnea and on prima facie satisfaction of this Court that the authority had acted willfully mala fide, he (DTO Purnea) was direct...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanak Mishra Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.9.1997. After his superannuation he was promoted to the post of Under Secretary with effect from 1.3.1994 by an order dated 17.8.1998. He submitted a representation in 1999 for grant of monetary benefits. Having failed to evoke any response he is before this Court.3. A counter affidavit has been filed. The counter affidavit is explicit that the delay in promotion was on account of reasons attributable to the respondents themselves and not to the petitioner even while it urges that the petitioner is not entitled to the monetary benefits, as he had not worked on the promotional post, yet in Para 4(iv) of the counter affidavit it concedes that others promoted by same notification have been granted monetary benefits under separate orders of this Court.4. This Court in the facts and circumstances the case, finds it difficult to appreciate ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Lalu Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Earlier when the present Government Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.12.2006 had been taken up by this Court after the issuance of notices upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a preliminary objection had been raised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as respondent No. 3, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the maintainability of the appeal on behalf of the State of Bihar. After hearing the parties, by order dated 20.9.2007, it was held that the present appeal by the State of Bihar is maintainable. The matter has now been heard on the issue of grant of leave to appeal and admission on the merits of the case.2. Respondent No. 1, who was accused No. 1 in the court below, was charged for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of having amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period between 10.3.1990 to 31.3.1997 in his ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Amar Nath Gupta
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The sole appellant, Amar Nath Gupta, was tried by Sri Jyoti Kumar Srivastava, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No. 356/12 of 2001/2003, arising out of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2001 and having been found guilty by judgment dated 30 June, 2004 for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in committing the barbaric and gruesome murder of Rekha Gupta and Upma Gupta has been sentenced to capital punishment of the gallows by order dated 5 July, 2004. Aggrieved thereby he has preferred the instant appeal No. 542 of 2004 which has been made analogous with the Death Reference for confirmation of the sentence of death.2. Due regard being had to the fact that the Death Reference and the Criminal Appeal arises out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence they have been taken up together and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The factual matrix needs recounting ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahilya Devi @ Ahiya Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The petitioners who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 594(C) of 2001 have prayed for the quashing of order dated 7.5.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2007 by which he has dismissed the revision filed against order dated 21.12.2006 passed in the aforesaid complaint case by Sri Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biharsharif, whereby he has allowed the petition dated 15.11.2006 filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C.2. The complainant Most. Rajo Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging, inter alia, that at around 11 A.M. on 11.7.2001 while she was in her house some altercation took place between the parties over construction of a wall by the accused persons, her son, Shashi Bhushan Sharma, protested and her other son, Sanjeev Sharma, came on hearing nulla and tried to intervene. It is further alleged that the accused person...
Tag this Judgment!Udai NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Jayanandan Singh, J.1. C.W.J.C.No. 1728 of 2000 was filed by the original pre-emptor against common order of learned Additional Member Board of Revenue passed in Revision Case Nos. 167 and 168 of 1996 allowing the revision applications of the purchaser, setting aside common order of the Additional Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) passed in Land Ceiling Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 1994-95 in favour of the pre-emptor and restoring the common order of the D.C.L.R., Bhabua passed in Ceiling Case Nos. 4 and 5 of 1993-94 dismissing the pre-emption application of the petitioner. Subsequently, in the light of the office objection with regard to the maintainability of one writ application against common order passed by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue in two revision cases, the pre-emptor petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No. 3500 of 2006 against the same order passed by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 168 of 1996. As the said C.W.J.C.No. 3500 of 2006 was in effec...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Diwakar Mehta and Sintu Kumar Singh @ Pankaj
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Shiva Kirti Singh and Shailesh Kumar Sinha, JJ.1. Shiva Kirti Singh & Shailesh Kumar Sinha, JJ. The Death Reference and the analogous four criminal appeals under consideration arise out of judgment and order dated 10.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 104/2003 whereby the learned trial court has convicted appellants, Sintu Kumar Singh @ Pankaj and Diwakar Mehta for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, IPC) and awarded death sentence. They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 364(A), 201, 302 read with Section 120(B) and 364(A) read with Section 120(B) of the IPC. But no separate sentence has been awarded for the other offences. Appellants, Vikash Kumar Singh @ Bikash Kumar Singh and Pankaj Kumar Singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 364(A) and 364(A) read with Section 120(B) of the IPC. Both of them have been awarded life imprisonment for the offence under Section 36...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
1. In the instant case the writ petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case on 19th February, 2008 at 1.30 P.M. As it appears from the counter affidavit filed to the present habeas corpus application filed by the petitioner, an attempt was made to produce the petitioner before the nearest Magistrate on 20th February, 2008. As appears from the counter affidavit it is the contention of the respondents that due to traffic jam the attempt made to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate on 20th February, 2008 did not succeed. The petitioner was thereupon admittedly produced before the Magistrate on 21st February, 2008 when he was remanded.2. From the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that despite efforts made with good intentions, the petitioner due to unfortunate traffic jam could not be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of his arrest. In the instant writ petition the petitioner is contending that continuation of such arrest being contrary ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaligram Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for private Respondent No. 4.The petitioner was transferred on 30.3.2007 from Kauakole in the District of Nawadah to Karakat in the District of Rohtas. He is aggrieved by his transfer soon thereafter as early as 24.1.2008 from Karakat to Bisfi in the District of Madhubani. The challenge is on the ground that this transfer at a very short duration has been made only to accommodate the private respondent No. 4 and that there was no administrative ground for the same.2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the private respondent.3. Transfer is a normal incidence of service. Courts are therefore normally reluctant to interfere with the orders of transfer unless good grounds are made out. Once the petitioner has questioned the administrative grounds, the official respondents were obliged to disclose the same which they have sought to do in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »