Patna Court July 2008 Judgments
Sunaina Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. The present writ application arises out of an Election Petition No. 72 of 2006 which was filed by one Meena Devi, respondent No. 10 to the present writ application challenging the election result for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Miya Ke Bhatkan in the district of Siwan.2. The present petitioner is the returned candidate and initially the challenge in the writ application was to an order dated 21.7.2007 passed by learned Munsif-I, Siwan by virtue of which direction for recounting of votes was issued. Contention of the petitioner was that the order for recounting can not be given as a matter of course or routine because there is no material on record to show that the mandatory requirement of Rule 79 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was actually invoked. It is not for asking that a recount can be ordered without there being sufficiency of material or evidence to show that the mandatory provisions or Rule 7...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sakal Pandit and Kapildeo Pandit Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Samarendra Pratap Singh, JJ.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.7.1988, passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 82/21 of 86, whereby the learned judge convicted appellant No. 1 (Ram Sakal Pandit @ Sakaldeo Pandit), under Section 307 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand), or in default to undergo RI for a further period of one year. He further convicted appellant No. 2 (Kapildeo Pandit) only under Section 323 IPC and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand), or in default to undergo RI for six months. The learned trial court did not pass any sentence of imprisonment against him under this section.2. The prosecution case, in short, as made out in the fard beyan of one Ram Narain Pandit S/o Ram Anup Pandit, resident of village Permandpur PS, and District Vaishali, recorded on...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanwanti Devi Vs. the State Election Commission (Panchayat) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. While exercising power under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 22.2.2008 contained in annexure 10 the State Election Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Reodha in the district of Darbhanga. This order has been challenged therefore in the present writ application.2. Some basic facts are not under dispute. Petitioner's father is a Nepali resident as well as its citizen. The mother is alleged to be the woman of Indian origin married to petitioner's father. Subsequently after matrimony it is stated that she too acquired Nepali citizenship voluntarily. Petitioner after coming of age entered into a matrimony with one Mithilesh Prasad in the year, 1988. She was supposed to be of 18 years of age. Based on the matrimony and her residence her name was entered into the electoral roll of Jale Legislative Assembly. According to her, her nam...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Md. Illiyas Vs. Narayan Sah
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 3.8.1993 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Munger in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1989 thereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1989 passed by Additional Munsif-IV, Munger in Title Suit No. 15 of 1983.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the abovementioned suit against the defendant-respondent for redemption along with other relief. His case in brief is that he executed two registered deeds of mortgage by conditional sale dated 26.6.1978 for Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 2500/- each) in respect of 10 katha of land each with a condition to re-convey if the plaintiff returns the amount within five years. Further case is that the plaintiff-appellant tendered mortgage money to the defendant-respondent within the time but he did not receive the same nor re-conveyed the land under mortgage. Hence, he filed the suit.3. The defendant-appellant contested the suit mainly on the ground that the docume...
Tag this Judgment!Shailesh Kumar 'Kaushal', Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. The controversy in these three cases relate to appointment on the post of Pharmacist. Earlier under the 1981 Rules of the Pharmacy Council the minimum qualification for admission in Diploma of Pharmacy course was Matriculation. An advertisement came to be published on 25.1.2000, advertisement No. 22/Pharma/l/99 by the State inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist. Before the advertisement could culminate in final selection and appointment, the Pharmacy Council amended its rules in 1994 to incorporate the minimum qualification for admission in Diploma of Pharmacy course as I.Sc. In accordance therewith the State Government framed statutory Rules in the year 2004 under Article 309 of the Constitution published on 20.8.2004 styled as the Bihar Pharmacist (Procedure Service Conditions and Appointment) Rules, 2004. Clause 1.2 of the statutory Rules provided I.Sc. or its equivalent qualification from a Government recognized institution as the minimum educational q...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bhagwan Tiwari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. In this batch of writ applications, common issues are involved and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common order except to the extent that any distinction has been made hereinafter.A counter affidavit has been filed in CWJC No. 16677 of 2004 on behalf of the State. It has already been noticed above that the issues are common in all the writ applications. The issues arising herein have already been considered by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 10568 of 2007 and analogous cases disposed on 20.5.2008. Though learned Counsel for the State in some of the cases has made a prayer for adjournment to file what is euphemistically termed as 'composite' counter affidavit, this Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter for the purpose. As noticed above, a counter affidavit has already been filed in CWJC No. 16677 of 2004. Additionally in CWJC No. 10568 of 2007 and analogous cases the contention of the State have been heard and cons...
Tag this Judgment!Devjee Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India.2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Corporal in 27th Wing of the Air Force and was posted at Bhuj Air Force Station in the State of Gujarat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2004, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and thereafter dismissed from service as also reduced in rank since he was found guilty by the District Court Martial, which order has also been promulgated on 2.7.2004 and is contained in Annexure-2 to this application. Having been dismissed from service, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 161 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Chief of the Air Staff, vide his memo of appeal dated 11.10.2004 as also served a reminder dated 1.12.2004 for early consideration of the appeal, which was considered and appeal dismissed, the order dismissing the appeal has been communicated by...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Samarendra Pratap Singh, JJ.1. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.8.1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1988 (State of Bihar v. Ram Sakhi Devi), whereby she has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant has been convicted for causing death of Pramod Kumar, a boy aged six years, by drowning him in the river flowing by the village.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant did not appear in spite of repeated calls. We have, therefore, appointed Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate, to assist us as Amicus Curiae.3. According to the prosecution case, one Dev Narain Singh recorded his Fardbeyan on 10.7.1987, at about 8.00 P.M. that he along with his grand-son, said Pramod Kumar, and the grand-daughter, namely, Somi aged eight years, had gone to their Bathan (the place for cattle in the village). He got busy with his banan...
Tag this Judgment!Chethru Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Samarendra Pratap Singh, JJ.1. The instant appeal by the sole appellant is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.1.1988, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1980, heard analogous with Sessions Case No. 596 of 1985, whereby he convicted the appellant Chethru Yadav under Sections 364, 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 364 and 302 of the I.P.C., and four years under Section 201 of the I.P.C. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The other accused, namely, Janki Yadav and Prabhu Yadav in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1980, and Shanti Singh and Indradeo Singh in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 1985, who jointly faced trial for charge under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, and Section 201/34 of the Penal Code, were acquitted by the impugned judgment.2. The prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan of one Soniya...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Prasad Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners, for the respondent Lalit Narayan Mithila University and the respondent State.2. The petitioners are stated to be teachers of the Womens College, Samastipur under the respondent University. It is their case that their entry into the service and promotion are all against the sanctioned posts. They are before this Court with a grievance for certain arrears of salary for specified period under the UGC Scale and differential Dearness Allowance as also interim relief along with prayer for interest on the admitted dues.3. The claim for salary essentially turns on administrative issue of facts unless issues of any eligibility to the claim in law arise. Presently a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University from which it is apparent that no legal issues requiring adjudication under Article 226 arise in the present matter. The position quite simply is that the University throws up its hands to urge that it shall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »