Patna Court May 2010 Judgments
indrajeet Upadhyay Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-21-2010
Jyoti Saran, J.1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. J.P. Karn, learned Additional Advocate General No. 9 for the State and Mr. L.P. K. Rajgrihar for the Accountant General.2. I.A. No. 521 of 2008 has been filed for amendment of the prayer made in the writ petition by incorporating the relief mentioned in paragraph-1 of the interlocutory application, whereby the petitioner has sought to challenge the orders as contained in Annexures-9, 11, 12, 13 and 15 cancelling the promotion(s) granted to the petitioner with retrospective effect followed by reversion to a lower scale and again followed by orders of recovery of the excess salary, so drawn by the petitioner. The petitioner has also questioned the authorization issued by the Accountant General on the basis of the aforementioned orders.3. The interlocutory application is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein.4. Brief fact of the matter is that the petitioner was appointed as a Conc...
Tag this Judgment!Sahdeo Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-21-2010
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence respectively dated 1 8th August 2003 and 22nd August 2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge cum-Fast Track Court, Munger passed in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1986, Tr. No. 206 of 2002, G.R. No. 1089 of 1984 (arising out of Sikandra P.S.Case No. 194 of 1984 whereby the appellant Sahdeo Yadav has been convicted under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months' and R.I. for 2 years. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.2. At the very out set it is relevant to mention here that one Bhunna Yadav had also been convicted under Sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, but regarding the sentence, he was released after admonition under Section 360(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He does not app...
Tag this Judgment!Manorama Singh @ Manorama Devi W/O Binay Kumar Singh and Gayatri Devi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-18-2010
Rakesh Kumar, J.1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.2.1999 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No. 574C of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons for securing attendance of the accused persons.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 flied a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 574 C of 1998 disclosing therein that both the petitioners representing themselves to be the Senior Officers of the JVG Finance Finance Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as ' the Company') persuaded the petitioners to deposit money in the account of the said Company and, as such, the complainant firstly deposited Rs. 51 ,000/- vide Receipt No. 2710 dated 30.5.1997. The complainant also deposited Rs. 33...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Bhushan Singh Son of Sri Ram Naresh Singh Vs. the State of Bihar ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-12-2010
Rakesh Kumar, J.1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for quashing of order dated 15.9.1998 passed by Sri A.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 839(C) of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 839(C) of 1998 disclosing therein that with a view to purchase a piece of land from a Co-operative Society, namely, Siwan Sahkari Girih Nirman Samiti Ltd., she made payment to the petitioner, who was Secretary of the Society in question. It has been disclosed that a total amount of Rs. 20,525/- was paid to the petitioner, but the petitioner never allotted any piece of land to the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant repeatedly contacted the petitioner for allotting the plot. However, on one pretext or the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Panmati Devi and ors. Vs. Sudarshan Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-12-2010
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.1. This First Appeal was filed by Jagdish Singh , the defendant against the judgment & decree dated 03.03.1978 passed by Sri Mudrika Prasad, VIth Additional Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 52 of 1973/04 of 1978. The sole appellant died during pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been substituted.2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Sudarshan Siungh filed the aforesaid Title Suit claiming relief for redemption of his share of Rs 1348/- & 2 1/2 Anna in three-Jarpeshagi deeds executed by the defendant No. 7 and others in favour of the defendant No. 1 (appellant) with respect to 10 Kathas & 15 Dhurs in R.S. plot No. 2990 of village, Balahu. The plaintiff- respondents also prayed for partition of his 14/27 share in the disputed land described in detail at the foot of the plaint.3. The plaintiff-respondent claim the reliefs on the facts inter alia that Bisheshwar Sah had three sons, namely, Mathura Gor, Gokula Gor and Shiv Gor. Mathura Gor di...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Lal Rai and ors. Vs. Brij Kishore Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-11-2010
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for appellants and the respondents under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the defendants first party and defendant second party appellants against the order dated 29.4.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge-Ist, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 543/2001 whereby the learned court below allowed the injunction application and restrained the appellants No. 1 to 7 from making any alteration in the land sold to them by defendants second party, i.e. appellant No. 8 and also restrained the second party defendant, i.e., appellant No. 8 with respect to transfer of land standing in the name of Sri Mahadeo Singh.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has restrained the appellant No. 8 without service of notice on her. According to the learned Counsel unless there was special circumstance no injunction could have been granted against the appellant No. 8 without hearing her. The...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Devi Wife of Late Ram Pabitra Tiwary @ Pavitra Tiwary (Decea ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-11-2010
V.N. Sinha, J.1. An affidavit has been filed by Arvind Kumar Tiwary, petitioner No. 3 stating that his mother, Saraswati Devi, petitioner No. 1 left for heavenly abode during the pendency of this application on 27.1.2005, leaving behind the heirs, who are already on record as petitioner Nos. 2 to 8.2. In the circumstances, name of deceased petitioner No. 1 be expunged from the array of the parties and the matter may proceed.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.4. petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2000, passed in Revision Case No. 209 of 1985, Annexure-9, whereunder request of the petitioners to grant one more unit for Pankaj Kumar Tiwary has been rejected.5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was allowed unit under orders dated 1.7.1983, Annexure-1, against which the State filed appeal No. 4 of 1984, which was allowed and the unit allowed for Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was cancelled under orders dated 7.5.1985, A...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Pathak Vs. Lakhraj Dubey and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-11-2010
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel the appellant under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.2. Notices were issued to the respondents but inspite of the service of notice nobody appeared.3. This Misc.Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the learned Fast Track Court-Ist, Siwan, in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1994 whereby the court below rejected the Misc. case and refused to readmit the title appeal.4. It appears that the father of the appellant, namely, Raghunath Pathak, along with others filed Title Appeal No. 73 of 1970 against the Judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 281 of 1963. The said suit was filed by the respondent No. 1.5. During the pendency of the appeal the father of the present appellant died. It further appears that the appellant was substituted. It further appears that by terms of order dated 30.4.1985 the learned lower appellate court, i.e., the then 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Siwan dismissed the appeal.6. Thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kishore Mishra @ Basahi Lal Son of Radha Kishun Mishra Vs. the ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-10-2010
Rakesh Kumar, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit. Keep it on record.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 order dated 22.3.1999 passed by Shri Abhay Kant Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Vaishali, Hajipur in Complaint Case No. C.I.351 of 1998/1209 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. CI.351 of 1998/1209 of 1999 alleging therein that the sole petitioner had persuaded the complainant for purchasing 1 & 1/2 Bigha of land appertaining to Khata No. 135, Khesra No. 78 of village Harbanshpur. Subsequently, the complainant made an advance payment of Rs. 75,000/-to the petitioner and the petitioner assured for executing sale deed. In the meanwhil...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdeo Prasad Mahto Son of Kishori Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar and S ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2010
Rakesh Kumar, J.1. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. By order dated 29.2.2000, while admitting this case and issuing notice to opposite party No. 2, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. It is evident from the record of the case that the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons by committing fraud in the judicial proceeding has got an order of stay and as such none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the present case.2. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, in some and substance, has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. in Lalit Narain Mithila University Campus P.S....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »