Patna Court September 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.
Union of India, and ors. Vs. Batuk Mandal, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Heard the parties. Although this writ petition was linked with two other writ petitions but we find that the facts of this case are quite different and, therefore, it has become necessary to pass a separate judgment in this case.2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, and Patna in OA No.150 of 2003 passed on 6.4.2005 (Annexure-6). By that order, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent employee, quashed the orders contained in Annexures A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4 and further declared that subsequent Annexures had become irrelevant. A liberty was granted to the petitioners to proceed against the applicant/ respondent afresh after serving him with proper charge- sheet and then hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in interfering with the matter on the ground that appellate order which confirmed the order of the di...
Balak Lal. Vs. Most.Bhagia Devi.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
(1) The defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 18.12.1987 passed by Sri Ram Sagar Singh, the learned Subordinate Judge III, Biharsharif in title suit no. 206 of 1973. (2) It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid title suit for partition of her half share. The suit was decreed by the learned Court below. No appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. Thereafter, final decree proceeding was initiated. Pleader-Commissioner was appointed and Pleader-Commissioner submitted his report. The appellants filed petition to the Pleader-Commissioner. Thereafter, the Court below after hearing the parties, rejected the objection and confirmed the Pleader-Commissioner's report and final decree was prepared. The Pleader-Commissioner's report formed part of the final decree. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has passed a cryptic and unreasoned order, rejecting the objection of the appellant. It was...
thengu Singh, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 8.9.2003 passed by taught Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Cr. Revision No.154 of 2003. By the said order revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of cognizance dated 2.6.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No.241(C) of 2002/Tr. No.1222 of 2003 arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.182 of 2001 was rejected.2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 had filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Jagdishpur Police Station, disclosing therein that on 17.9.2001 in the night at 12.00, the petitioner no.1 Thengu Singh had looted certain articles like Battery of the Tractor of the informant, Dynamo etc. from the vehicle of the informant. The reason of commission of such occurrence was mentioned that a case was going on in between the informan...
Union of India, and ors. Vs. Yadunandan Roy, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Both the writ petitions raise a common question of law with a view to challenge the correctness and legality of impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, and Patna. In the case of Bidya Nand Choudhary, the impugned order is dated 3.6.2005 (Annexure-4) passed in OA No.697 of 2004. In the other case also the impugned order is dated 3.6.2005 but passed in OA No.764/2002 filed by the two petitioners of the other case, Yadunandan Roy and Balkishan Roy.2. In both the cases the learned Tribunal noticed that the charge-sheet relied only upon statement made by the concerned employees before the Justice G. N. Ray Commission which was admittedly constituted under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 in relation to a railway accident on 1.2.1999 involving collision between Awadh Assam Express and Brahmputra Mail at Gaisal within Katihar Division. The Tribunal found that use of statements made by the concerned employees / delinquent was not permissi...
NaraIn Tankoria NaraIn Pd. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 29.1.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.1201C of 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate, after being satisfied that prima facie offence under Sections 147, 323, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, had directed for summoning the petitioners.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed complaint in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, which was numbered as Complaint case No.1201C of 2001. In the complaint petition, it was disclosed that in the year 1986, father of the complainant had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner no.1 on a consideration money of Rs.20,000/-. However, there was a condition in the sale deed that if by the month of May, 1987, the father of the complainant returns Rs.20,000/-, the petitioner no.1 Narain Tankoria @ Narain Pd. Tankoria will execute ...
Mathura Barai, and ors. Vs. Sudama Devi.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
(1) The defendants have filed this First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1979 passed by Sri Gauri Shankar Choube, the learned Subordinate Judge, Jamui in title suit no. 8 of 1976 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for partition. (2) The plaintiff-respondent, Sudama Devi filed aforesaid title suit no. 8 of 1976 claiming for partition of her 4 Anna share in the suit property. Her case in short is that one Jitan Barai was the common ancestor. He died in a state of jointness with his two sons Akal Barai and Tulsi Barai before the cadastral survey. Akal Barai had two sons namely, Gango Barai and Saryug Barai. Tulsi Barai had a son, Masudan Barai. All of them were members of a joint Hindu family and Gango Barai was the Karta of the family. Plaintiff is the daughter of Saryug Barai and her mother was Sitla Devi. Saryug Barai died in or about the year 1948 in a state of jointness leaving behind his widow, Sitla Devi and the plaintiff, Sudama Devi as daughter. Tuls...
Anup Kumar Mehra, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-20-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2.2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 15.04.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, for the offences under sections 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1799 of 2004.3. The relevant facts of this case is that one Complaint Case No. 1799 of 2004 was filed by the complainant opposite party no.2 on 03.09.2004 against five petitioners who are officials of Telecom Department alleging therein that on 10.01.1993 one Lalit Agarwal filed an application for Telephone Connection in the name of Shankar Lal Pansari, son of Nagar Mal Pansari, and accordingly, Telephone connection no. 23083 was provided till 19.09.2000 against the bill was paid, but, subsequently no payment was made. A bill worth Rs. 54,9...
Shankar Rai, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.584 of 2003. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.584 of 2003.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi , which was numbered as Complaint Case No.584 of 2003, against all the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . After filing of the complaint petition and examining the complainant on S.A., the learned Magistrate took cognizance o...
Jagdish Purbey, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. Nine petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.2.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Complaint Case No.291C of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 484 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.6.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No.119 of 2002. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision preferred by petitioners against the order of cognizance.2. Short fact of the case is that initially opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1377C of 2000. The said complaint was filed on 21.7.2000. The said complaint was subsequently referred to the police for its registration and...
Vinay Kumar Singh. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1. The petitioner, who was an Officer of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and Certificate Officer under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash of an order dated 26.8.2002 passed by Shri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons including the petitioner.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001, against five accused persons including the petitioner on allegation of commission of offences by accused persons under Sections 331, 323, 343, 420 and 468 of the Indian Pena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »