Patna Court December 2011 Judgments
Mantu Singh @ Mantu Kumar Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 20.1.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah, in Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.203 of 2001, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the six accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners and also the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah, dismissing the Criminal Revision No.81 of 2008, as preferred by the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners, against the aforesaid cognizance order dated 20.1.2007. 2. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that on the basis of the written report of one Yogendra Kumar Jain, Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.203 of 2001 was instituted on 11.11.2001 against the six accused including the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Co...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hpcl Biofuels Ltd, and Another Vs. the Saraswati Industrial Syndi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
R.M. DOSHIT, C.J. Re: I.A. No. 7042 of 2011 This application is made by the appellant for permission to bring on record the correspondence (pp 44 to 49). The respondents have no objection, if the said documents are placed on record. Permission is granted. Interlocutory Application is allowed. Re: L.P.A. No. 1336 of 2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the M/S HPCL BIOFUELS LTD, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a public sector undertaking of the Central Government, against the judgment and order dated 7th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 16774 of 2010. The respondent no.1, the writ petitioner, is one Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Company”). The Company claims that it is the proprietor of M/S ISGEC John Thomson (hereinafter referred to as “the Firm”). The Company entere...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Prasad, P.S. Bagaha, District Vs. the State of Bihar, Through ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby the licence granted to the petitioner for vending of stamps including court fee stamps, has been cancelled. It is submitted that upon the recommendation of the District Judge, the respondent no. 2, i.e., the Collector, West Champaran had granted licence bearing No. 8/82-83 to the petitioner on 20.12.1982 for selling Court Stamps etc. in the premises of Civil Court, Bagaha under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Court Fee Act, 1870. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuously selling the stamps and court fee within the premises of Civil Court for about 22 years. Although there was no written complaint against the petitioner, the respondent no. 4, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bagaha had searched the residential house of the petitioner situated at Bagaha on 8.12.2003 and submitted some report to the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Mahto and Others Vs. the State of Bihar and Another
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No.206(C) of 2006, summoning the accused-petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. While this application was filed on behalf of the four accused-petitioners, namely, Nandu Mahto, Dinesh Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Rita Devi, but due to the death of the accused-petitioner, Nandu Mahto, this application in respect to him has been rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.6.2010 as having become infructuous. As such, this application survives only on behalf of the remaining three accused-petitioners. 3. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.206(C) of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhar Chandra Verma Vs. State Information Commissioner and Others
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
Vikash Jain, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.11913 of 2009 dismissing the writ application which had been filed for quashing the order dated 29.07.2009 whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- had been imposed on the appellant under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’). 2. An application dated 24.04.2008 was filed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Azad (Respondent no.3) seeking certain information under the RTI Act on various points. It is relevant to note that para 2 (iv) of the said application required, inter alia, the information on the points enumerated therein to be supplied after carrying out physical inspection of the site. 3. Pursuant to the application aforesaid, the appellant, who was posted as Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif at the relevant time furnished the requisite information on the various points in terms of letter No. 200 dated...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›