Patna Court November 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Surendra Kumar Choudhary. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.01.1992 as contained in Annexure-9, by which the Additional Collector, Munger has held that the petitioners have no right to hold a Hat over the C.S. Plot No. 9, which is adjacent to Plot Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 21, where the State Government is now holding a cattle Hat.2. The dispute with respect to holding of a hat over plot no. 9 arose in the year 1950. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 11 of 1950/04 of 1953 in which he made a prayer that the defendants (i.e. the Banaili Raj) and the defendants 2nd set i.e. the public in general, should be injuncted from holding a hat over plot no. 9 of village Tarapur. Apparently, the dispute arose because of the fact that the erstwhile Banaili Raj held a bi-weekly Hat over plot nos. 10, 11, 13 and 21, which belongs to Banaili Raj. The Banaili Raj wanted to extend the area of operation of the hat and thus, extended the Hat to Plot No. 9, which led to the filing of the suit. The defendants 2nd Set,...
Md.Naushad Ahmad. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The sole petitioner, who was at the relevant time President of Janta Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., Makhdumpur, Jehanabad, has approached this Court for quashing of criminal proceeding, which was initiated vide order dated 4.6.2003 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.663 of 2001/Tr. No.628 of 2007. By the order dated 4.6.2003, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Of course, in the petition, it has also been asserted that at subsequent stage i.e. at the stage of charge, petition for discharge was filed, which has been rejected on 16.3.2007 by the learned Magistrate, but in the prayer portion of the petition, there is no such prayer for quashing of the order of rejection of discharge petition.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 initially filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, which was numbered as Complaint C...
Amresh Kumar MishrA. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.2.2002 passed by Sri Ajay Nath Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in C.A.No.1704 of 2001, T.R.No.1418 of 2002. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406,468, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the accused persons, including the petitioner.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate disclosing therein that he had purchased distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of the film " Aadmi Khilona Hai" from accused no.3, who was the proprietor of M/S Ganga Kaberi Films, Katihar for exploiting the said right for the area in question. It was alleged that subsequently, the complainant deposited the amount with accused no.3 and registration Certificate was a...
Smt.Urmila Devi, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is none on behalf of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in spite of earlier appearance.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 13.04.2006 passed by Girish Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, in G.R. No. 2658/2004 Tr. No. 2838/2006 in Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 412/2004 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that one Sheo Kumar Pathak had three sons Krishna Mohan Pathak petitioner no.2, Paras Nath Pathak opposite party no.2 and Triyogi Narayan Pathak. There is one registered deed of gift executed on 13.08.2003 in the name of Sheo Kumar Pathak in favour of petitioner no.1 who is none else than petitioner no.2. The deed in question was ascribed by petitioner no.5 and petitioner nos. 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›