Patna Court April 2011 Judgments
M/S Lachhman Das Nirmal Kumar. Vs. M/S Central Bank of India, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. The plaintiff has filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2000 passed by Sri S.M. Nasimuddin, Sub Judge XV, Patna in Title Suit No. 106 of 2000 rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff-appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It appears that Title Suit No. 119 of 1978 was filed by the defendant No.1 against the plaintiff and defendant No.2 which was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal and it was registered as P.T. Case No. 241 of 1998. The said case was instituted by the Bank for recovery of loan advanced to defendant No.2. The plaintiff executed equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. The said suit was decided by the Tribunal on 23.7.1999. A certificate was also issued which is pending before the defendant No.3-respondent for execution of the same. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit praying therein for declaration that the plaintiff's liability stands discharged because the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Md.Mansoor, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Baisi Police Station Case No. 63 of 2006 instituted under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers-in-law of the informant Shahina Naaz, whereas petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no. 4 is the Gotni, wife of the petitioner no. 1.3. The facts are that the complainant Shahina Naaz instituted a complaint case against her husband and the petitioners on 06.03.2006. These petitioners were let off in the complaint case, inasmuch as cognizance was taken against the husband only by order dated 19.05.2006. Subsequently, on 02.07.2006, Shahina Naaz filed the present Baisi Police Station Case No. 63 of 2006.4. During the pendency of this entire matter, there was a compromise between Shahina Naaz and her husband, as a result of which this Court quashed the main complaint case, i.e. Complaint Case No. 392 of 2006...
Tag this Judgment!Lalan Dusadh. Vs. Ram Nagina Dusadh, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2002 passed by Dr. Sayeed Akhuriddin, the learned 6th Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Title Suit No.466 of 1999 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for partition.2. The plaintiff prayed for half share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed the said relief alleging that the parties are descendants of common ancestor Prayag Dusadh who had two sons, namely, Thakur Dusadh and Bechan Dusadh. The plaintiff represents Bechan Dusadh's branch whereas the defendants-appellants represent the branch of Thakur Dusadh. During cadastral survey, only Thakur Dusadh was born and, therefore, his name was recorded with respect to entire land of Prayag Dusadh. Prayag Dusadh died in 1914 and Bechan Dusadh was born in 1913 after finalization of survey Kathiyan so his name could not be recorded. The entire suit land is self-acquired property of Prayag Dusadh. Jag...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Mishra, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State.2. Petitioners had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10546 of 2002 for almost similar relief, as prayed in the present Writ Application. Prayer of the petitioners in earlier Writ Application was for a direction to the Respondents to absorb their services under Minor Irrigation Department, Tube Well Project, with effect from the due date or from the date, persons, similar to them or juniors to them have been absorbed. Their prayer was also to give all legal, consequential and financial benefits on account of their absorption. On the earlier occasion, prayer of the petitioner was for quashing of Order, dated 18.07.2002, whereby petitioners were not found fit for absorption, as their appointment letters had been found to be forged and fabricated. The Writ Application was allowed. The impugned order, dated 18.07.2002 was quashed and the Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›