Patna Court April 2010 Judgments
Satrughan Mahto and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Dharnidhar Jha, J.1. The solitary appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1988 was charged under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The four appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 1988 were charged under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act for being tried on Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1984. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah held appellant Shatrughan Mahto guilty of committing the offences, he had been charged with and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The four appellants of the other appeal were also found guilty of committing offences under Section 148, 302/149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the same sentences were inflicted upon each of them under each of the Sections as was inflicted upon appellant Satrughan Mahto. These two appeals ha...
Tag this Judgment!Nawal Kishore Gupta Son of Late Baiju Lal Gupta Vs. the T.M. Bhagalpur ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.2. The petitioner upon his superannuation on 31st May, 2004 from the post of Mechanic in the Post Graduate Department of Physics under the respondent-University, was visited with two orders as per letter No. PEN-G-1728/ACC/1655/08 and PEN-G-1728/ACC 1653/08 both dated 17.09.2008 vide Annexures 13 & 14 respectively. Petitioner by the above orders was communicated to the effect that the pension payable to him was fixed on the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- instead of Rs. 3050-4590 and consequently the excess payment made to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,30,781/-towards the gratuity and pension is being recovered in instalments as mentioned in the said order.3. Petitioners on being aggrieved challenged the aforesaid decision through a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 15439 of 2008 disposed of on 12.11.2008 as contained in Annexure-2 1 of the writ application directing the University to dispose of the pending representatio...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Singh Son of Late Shri Ram Dayal Singh Vs. Ram Kishori Devi A ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
Gopal Prasad, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.1994 passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 1979 by which the appeal has been dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.1978 passed by Sri Mundrika Prasad, VIth Additional Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 129 of 1965 / 25 of 1977.2. Appellant is the defendant in the suit. Original Plaintiff Amar Rai filed a suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 07.02.1964 executed by him in favour of defendant Sita Ram Singh with respect to the property in suit is illegal, inoperative and void with further prayer for recovery of possession of suit property and mense profit.3. The original plaintiff Amar Rai died during pendency of suit, his wife & daughter were substituted in his place as plaintiff No. 1 and 2 respectively.4. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the said original plaintiff Amar Rai had got his first marriage at village Pachphor, the first wife (D...
Tag this Judgment!Sumit Jayaswal S/O Dr. P.K. Jaiswal Vs. the State of Bihar and Abhai K ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Rakesh Kumar, J.1. Despite repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2. However, in the present case at the time of admission, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.12.1997 passed by Sri A.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 434(C) of 1997. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of process for securing attendance of the accused persons.3. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 filed a complaint petition , vide Complaint Case No. 434(C) of 1997 alleging therein that this petitioner had approached the complainant on 15.9.1992 and persuaded him to supply leather products ,i.e. ladies and gents leather over-coats. The compla...
Tag this Judgment!Dineshwar Prasad Son of Sri Nityanand Singh, Vs. the State of Bihar an ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Navin Sinha and D.K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the State.2. An order of this Court in L.P.A. No. 448 of 2005 and analogous cases holding that promotion of Basic Health Workers from class-IV post to class-III post of clerk was not consonance with law led to an administrative order dated 18.10.2005 by the Director General, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, to examine all such cases of promotion and take appropriate action in accordance with law.3. In pursuance thereto, the respondents passed an order on 31.03.2006 that the promotion of the appellants to class-III post was not in accordance with law and reverted them to class IV post after 27 years of such promotion.4. On challenge by the appellants the judgment under appeal held that procedures required their cases to be considered for promotion by the Establishment Committee which had not been followed and a pick and choose method was adopted for grant of promotions.5. The defence of non-compli...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Muslim Son of Shri Mohd. MoinuddIn (Proprietor of Monad Investme ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the complainant/ O.P. No. 2.2. On behalf of the petitioner a challenge has been made to the entire criminal prosecution as well as to the order of cognizance dated 3-4-1995 passed in complaint case bearing No. 576(c)/94 pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ara (Bhojpur).3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for advancing an argument that the complaint which alleges offence under Section 138 of the Act was filed much beyond the permissible period of one month from the date on which the cause of action arose in terms of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 and hence, learned Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of any offence on the basis of such complaint.4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission, the relevant ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishundeo Manjhi, Vs. Smt. Parwati Devi Widow of Late Mahendra Prasad ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
S.N. Hussain, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-respondents 1st set-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below by which the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed.2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 90 of 1979 (22/1985) which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants with respect to 2 Bigha 13 Katha 1 Dhur of Plot Nos. 138, 442 (of Khata No. 2), Plot Nos. 41 1, 139 (of Khata No. 97) and Plot No. 265 (of Khata No. 151) situated at Mauza Hakam in Pargana Bara within Thana No. 252 of Tauzi No. 1128 under Siwan Police Station within the district of Siwan detailed in the Schedule at the foot of the plaint for the following reliefs:(a) Declaration of exclusive title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also for declaration that defendants had no title over the same and they cannot legally try to oust the plaintiffs.(b) Confirmation of plaintiffs' possession over the suit land.(c) Decree of injunction restraining the def...
Tag this Judgment!Damyanti Devi Vs. Jyoti Puram Sahkari Grih Nirman
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 at length under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.2. With consent of the parties this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.3. The appellant, Damyanti Devi Manila College, Khajpura, has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Subordinate Judge - 1st, Patna, in Title Suit No. 381 of 2008 whereby the court below has rejected the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff appellant.4. The plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 381 of 2008 praying therein that on adjudication of the facts the title of the plaintiff over the suit land be declared and possession be confirmed and in case of dispossession a decree for recovery of possession may be granted. The plaintiff appellant also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Prasad Yadav S/O Sri Singheshwari Pd. Yadav Vs. the State of Bi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
J.N. Singh, J.1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. Since both the writ applications arise out of same cause of action and for the same reliefs by one petitioner, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. Petitioner has filed both the writ applications for a direction to the respondents to treat him as a Demonstrator working in the college with effect from 15.9.1975, to give him concurrence of service, and to give concurrence to his promotion as Lecturer counting his services as Demonstrator from the said date with all consequential benefits, and to give other consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Reader also as per Statute.4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in K.P. College, Murliganj in the district of Madhepura when the College was an affiliated College. It is claimed that he was appointed by the Managing Committee after due advertisement and interview. Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Singh Vs. Most. Sumitra Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties on the interlocutory application, i.e., I.A. No. 5477/07 at Flag 'A'.2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25.9.2007 praying therein to restrain the respondents from alienating, incumbering the suit property and also restraining to receive compensation in land acquisition case and also from changing the nature and character of the suit land.3. The plaintiff appellant filed this appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the court below on 28.3.2007 in Title Suit No. 147/92 dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of the two registered gift deeds executed by the defendants as collusive and void and thereafter for partition of the suit property to the extent of 1/12.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no partition between the plaintiffs de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »