Patna Court August 2009 Judgments
Shanti Devi, Widow of Late Bameshwar Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar Thr ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. Petitioner is the wife of Late Bameshwar Sharma, who died while serving as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government on 26.10.2000. She has filed this writ application challenging the order of the Deputy Secretary to the State Government, bearing letter No. 534 dated 21.2.2008, Annexure-6, whereunder her request for grant of interest over the arrears of monetary benefit in the light of promotion order, bearing memo No. 2349 dated 17.9.1997, promoting Sri Bameshwar Sharma on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 21.10.1982, has been considered in the light of the order dated 2.12.2005, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6711 of 2004, Annexure-3 and rejected holding that husband of the petitioner has been allowed monetary benefits of promotion with effect from 21.10.1982 under reasoned order, bearing No. 1095 dated 4.5.2007 in the light of the order dated 2.12.2005, Annexure-3 in w...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Keshri Son of Late Bhagwan Das Keshri, District Welfare O ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as District Welfare officer is aggrieved by the notification of the State Government bearing Memo No. 3102 dated 24.7.2009 (Annexure-3) where under he has been placed under suspension for his involvement in the scholarship scam with direction to receive suspension allowance in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 2005.3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the notification placing the petitioner under suspension is wholly arbitrary and violative of the CCA. Rules 2005 inasmuch as the proceeding having been initiated under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 under resolution of the Government bearing No. 1814 dated 16.4.2004 should be continued in terms of the old rules in the light of the provisions contained in repealing Clause or the 2005 ru...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeo Yadav Son of Sri Manager Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. Out of the four accused persons, Ramdeo Yadav has been convicted under Sections 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.2. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.1986, the informant Raj Kumar Yadav (P.W.6) along with his sons Rameshwar Yadav (P.W.3) and Gudar Yadav (P.W.5) were sleeping on a 'Machan' in the 'Gohal' (cattle shed) where it is alleged that he was assaulted by the accused persons by means of a Lathi. Specific case is that after the assault was made, the sons of the informant woke up and chased the accused persons and were able to identify them in the lantern light which was burning in the 'Gohal'. The reasons for the occurrence as disclosed by the informant is that the informant, Raj Kumar Yadav and one Manager Yadav, father of the present appellant had purchased a piece of land jointly. Manager Yadav has sold his share of the land to Rasik Lal Yadav who was also made accused in this case along with his two ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Thakur Son of Late Jagarnath Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Ravi Ranjan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6(a).2. Despite service of notice to other Respondents No. 6(b), 6(c), and 7 to 11, no body had appeared on their behalf.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2000, passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation (Head Quarter), Bihar, Patna, Respondent No. 3, whereby the earlier passed by the Dy. Director Consolidation, Vaishali under Section 33A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been set aside and direction was given to delete the names of the respondents / opposite parties therein including the petitioner of this case from the chak khatiyan.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had confined himself to a short question of law at the time of hearing of this case. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Dy. Director Cons...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ranjay Paswan
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Navin Sinha and Dharnidhar Jha, JJ.1. The solitary appellant, namely, Ranjay Paswan was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court IV, Jamui, in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2006 with co-accused Sudarshan Paswan for composite charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. While acquitting the co-accused sudarshan Paswan of the charges indicated above, the learned Judge held the appellant guilty of committing offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by his judgment and order of conviction dated 27.8.2008 and directed placing the records before him again on 3.9.2008 so as to hearing the convict on sentence and passing the order of sentence on that particular day. While passing the order of sentence on 3.9.2008, the learned Judge was of the view that the case fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases, because the impac...
Tag this Judgment!Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Singh Son of Birendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Mandhata Singh, J.1. There is no need to mention the fact or merit of the case as the release of the petitioner is claimed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 27 of the Arms Act, petitioner surrendered and was taken into custody on 6.6.2009. After completion of 90 days rather on 92 days a petition was filed to release the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly finding no chargesheet submitted in the case petitioner was released.2. Accroding to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 6th June, 2009 the day on which he was allowed bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was Saturday and petitioner was in jail custody, so bail bond could be furnished on 8.6.2009 on Monday, the working day and that is refused on the ground that after passing of the order and before furnish...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Kumar Vs. Raj Narayan Singh @ Rajan and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. I.A. No. 1790 of 2009 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recall of the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by this Court by which the objection petition filed by the defendant-objectors on 17.9.2008 was allowed.2. The stand taken in the application is that the objection had been filed beyond the mandatory period of eight days as provided by Rule 18, Chapter XI Part II of the Patna High Court Rules. It is stated that the objectors/defendants appeared after service of notices and filed a caveat on 19.8.2008 and thereafter the objection petition was filed on 17.9.2008 after expiry of 29 days from the filing of the caveat.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the plaintiff-applicant that under the aforesaid Rule 18 of the Patna High Court Rules objection petition has to be filed within eight days of the filing of the caveat and under Rule 20 where no such objection is filed in compliance of Rule 18 then the caveat may be discharged by the Court. In this regard le...
Tag this Judgment!Dental Council of India Through Its Secretary, a Body Constituted Unde ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Jyoti Saran, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna arises out of the judgment dated 26.02.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2298 of 1997 (Vishwa Budhist Parishad and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors.) and order dated 18.08.1998, in Civil Review No. 92 of 1998, by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition in terms of the directions in the impugned orders.2. We shall go by the position of the parties and the annexures as it stood in the writ proceedings. The writ petition was jointly filed by the two petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered minority society of Citizens of India following the Budhist faith, and is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860, in the year 1979. Its main aims and objects being promotion of peace, culture and education, through Budhism, and eradication of illiteracy from the society. Petitioner No. 2 is the Budhist Mission Dental College & Hospital, es...
Tag this Judgment!Jhatkan Singh @ Azad Singh Son of Shri Balram Singh Vs. State of Bihar ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Mandhata Singh, J.1. In the case, age of the petitioner has been assessed 23 years which is affirmed by the appellate court also. There is no need to lay down the fact of the case as assessment of age is only in question. It is worthless to mention that once age of the petitioner was decided by the Juvenile Justice Board which was challenged in appeal and was allowed with some direction. Now this order is affirmed by the appellate court.2. In the case, witnesses are examined on behalf of the petitioner. Certificate of birth register is filed. Thereafter, opinion of the Medical Board is obtained. Certificate of birth register has rightly been not taken into consideration as birth was registered only after making some observation on the point of assessment of age. Admit card if can be taken as certificate of matriculation is also doubted. Then evidence of the witnesses and opinion of the Medical Board remain to discuss.3. Before entering into this admissibility it is pertinent to mention...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Devi Wife of Late Suraj Kumar Choudhary Vs. the Bihar State Foo ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Petitioner's late husband, Suraj Kumar Choudhary, was an Assistant Manager in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and was posted at different Godowns at different time.2. It appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for alleged unaccounted shortage in respect of stocks at Rohtas. While those proceedings were pending, a supplementary chargesheet was given in respect of stocks relating to Darbhanga, Dumka, Vaishali and some other Godowns of Rohtas where he was posted. The said employee filed his reply to all those charges and participated in the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, on 3.12.2003, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report. Enquiry report is Annexure B to the counter affidavit. I may notice here that a bare reference to the enquiry report would show that there is little or no consideration of petitioner's defence nor has any evidence at all been discussed. The enquiry report also notices in the en...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »