Patna Court July 2008 Judgments
indrajit Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
V.N. Sinha, J.1. C.W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia to direct the authorities of the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi to produce the entire records of the proceeding dated 6.6.2001 whereunder private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been promoted on the post of Vaidya ignoring the better claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-B to the Counter affidavit of C.W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 as also to quash the order dated 7.6.2001 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of C.W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 whereunder private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been informed of the decision to promote them on the post of Vaidya.2. C.W.J.C. No. 4549 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia to direct the authorities of the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi to pay the petitioner arrears of salary of the post of Vaidya for the period between July, 1999 to March, 2001 when he served as Vaidya in the light of the order bearing Memo No. 1007 dated 30.3.1...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Devi and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Barin Ghosh and C.M. Prasad, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The subject matter of this writ petition on facts is identical to those of two writ petitions which having been allowed, appeals were preferred and the said appeals have been allowed. The said appeals were registered as LPAs No. 164/2008 & 165/2008 which have been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 29th July, 2008 and, accordingly, in relation to the subject matter of the writ petition touching the facts culminating in filing of the writ petition are not separately dealt with but concluded on the reasons furnished by the Division Bench in its order passed on 29th July, 2008 in LPAs No. 164/2008 & 165/2008.2. In the present writ petition in addition to what has been stated above, the writ petitioner challenged the vires of Rule 75(1)(g) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006. According to the petitioner, by seeking to require a voter to mark a ballot only by the seal to be provided by the Electi...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Singh, Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State Advisory Committee and the State of Bihar.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the final allocation of their services to the State of Jharkhand, consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar. The issues are common in all the three writ applications except for an additional issue urged in CWJC No. 8257 of 2008 which this Court shall consider separately.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had exercised their option to remain in the State of Bihar. A tentative allocation list of cadre was prepared retaining them in the State of Bihar. This cadre allocation was done on the basis of tentative seniority list existing on the cut off date i.e. 15.11.2000. Subsequently, a final seniority list was prepared in July, 2005, where the seniority position of the petitioners were altered to their prejudice resulting in their final allocation to the State of Jharkhand. That this final seniority list wa...
Tag this Judgment!Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Through Its Manager S.N. Poddar and anr. Vs ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Barin Ghosh and C.M. Prasad, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.If there is a contract for sale, three elements are essential, namely, parties, property and price. The purchaser must agree to purchase from the seller and, at the same time, the seller must agree to sell to the purchaser. The property agreed to be sold should be ascertained by both the seller and the purchaser. The price to be paid and received should also be ascertained and agreed by the both. In the absence of any of these elements, the contract for sale will fail.2. Essential Commodities Act is not a deterrent for production or manufacture of essential commodities. The same however, is a deterrent in the matter of choosing the buyer of essential commodities. Producers or manufacturers of essential commodities have no market. They are bound to sell essential commodities to the buyer to be nominated by the Central Government. Inasmuch as, producers or manufacturers of essential commodities have no market, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Broadway Foods Ltd. Thru. M.D. and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1118 (C) of 2006 whereby the court has taken cognizance under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioners are officers of the Broadway Foods Limited company. The Company, appointed the opposite party No. 2 to become a Stockist in Patna and C & F agent at Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) and they entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 2 for the said purpose. The opposite party claim that they were appointed as C & F agents for both places i.e., Patna and Hazaribagh. It is alleged that the complainant paid Rs. 5 Lacs as security for the purpose of becoming stockists and C & F agent at Patna and thereafter the complainant paid various amounts of money on various dates in lieu of supply of stock by the accused persons.3. The main allegation on the basis of which the complaint has been filed...
Tag this Judgment!Realtors Private Limited Vs. the Bihar State Financial Corporation and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
V.N. Sinha, J.1. This writ application has been filed by M/S Realtors Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') for quashing the sale order dated 27.05.1998, Annexure-3 issued by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), whereunder mortgaged assets of M/s Patliputra Rubber Industries Private Limited, Patna, the promoter, Respondent No. 3 was directed to be sold in favour of the Company with further prayer in the writ application to declare the consequential steps taken in the light of the said sale order to be illegal and then to direct the Corporation to refund the amount of Rs. 40 lacs with 12 per cent interest received by it in lieu of the sale order from the petitioner-Company.2. In support of the prayer made in this writ application learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the promoter, Respondent No. 3 had taken 4 Bigha one Katha and 12 Dhurs of land bearing plot Nos. 330, 338, 334...
Tag this Judgment!Sharmila Jaisawal Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
S.P. Singh, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Raja Prasad, has prayed for grant of compensation as her husband admittedly died in police lock up.2. The petitioner states that on 4.10.2006 at about 7 P.M. some altercation took place between the husband of the petitioner on the one hand and Shankar Das and others on the other hand. Around that time the Officer-Incharge of Mufassil P.S. Respondent No. 6 along with his associates came and arrested Raja Prasad and his cousin Nandu Prasad. On query the respondent No. 6 said that they should be soon let off. The police also arrested Shankar Das and Laxman Das who are respondents 9 and 10. All of them were locked in police Hajat of Muffasil P.S. In the evening the petitioner's brother-in-law went to the police station to enquire about Raja Prasad and Nandu Prasad. Respondent No. 6 stated that they would be released in the morning. Thereafter the petitioner went to the police station on the follo...
Tag this Judgment!Gorakh Sahni and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
S.K. Katriar, J.1. The two appeals at the instance of the six accused persons arise out of a common judgment dated 19.4.1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1979/17 of 1984 State through Gagandeo Sahni v. Gorakh Sahni and Ors. whereby Gorakh Sahni has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for causing the murder of Chameli Devi, the daughter-in-law of Gorakh Sahni, and the wife of Dasai Sahni. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 201 IPC. In so far as the remaining appellants are concerned, they have been convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for disappearance of the dead body of Chameli Devi. They have each been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. According to the fardbeyan of Gagandeo Sahni recorded on 18.9.1978, at 7 p.m., at village Ekona, PS Chiraiya, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Mishra and Jagnarayan Mishra Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.2. Petitioners are the land-holders. Their lands were subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 3/9-1981-82 which was initiated pursuant to Notification dated 19.08.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act is dated 18.12.1980. Both the documents are contained in Annexures- C and E to the supplementary counter affidavit. The acquisition was for the purposes of laying a road. The possession of the lands in-question was taken in the year 1980 soon after notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published whereafter the road was also laid over the same. The Award was also made on 21.07.1982 and is contained in Annexure-I to the supplementary counter affidavit. Funds being not available, the purpose of the acquisition having achieved and road already laid the State-respondents did not...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Prakash Srivastava and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Barin Ghosh and Chandra Mohan Prasad, JJ.1. The appellants before us were engaged by the Collectorate, Saran and soon thereafter they were disengaged. On the basis of representation made by them, the Commissioner of the Division directed their re-engagement for a period of one year. They were re-engaged as daily wage Muharrirs. Before expiry of one year from the date of their engagement, they filed a service case. While the service case was pending disposal, an order dated 3rd June 1991 was passed and by virtue thereof, the order of the Commissioner was cancelled. This affected re-engagement of the petitioners as daily wage Muharrirs. Later on the service case was dismissed by order dated 18th June 1991. Challenging the orders dated 3rd June 1991 and 19th June 1991, the appellants preferred a writ petition challenging principally those two orders and also seeking their regularization in the permanent establishment.2. The writ Court refused to interfere with these two orders dated 3rd ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »