Patna Court January 2012 Judgments
Mahanth Ramasis Das and Others Vs. Noor Md.Mian and Others
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
Vijayendra Nath, J. Oral: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents on 04.11.11 when this appeal was called out for hearing and the learned counsel for the appellants had been heard in part. On 11.11.11 when the hearing of this appeal resumed, again no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 30/83/13/86 on 17.07.1986 by Additional District Judge III, Bettiah whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1983 passed in Title Suit No.21/80 by 1st Additional Sub Judge, Bettiah has been reversed. This appeal was earlier heard and was allowed by judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001 by this Court but the same had been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 28th August, 2009 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2446/02 and the matter has been remitted back to this Court to consider the appeal afresh after hea...
Tag this Judgment!Kalawati Devi and Another Vs. Yoganti Devi and Others
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
1. I have already heard the learned counsel Mr. Chandrakant on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey on behalf of the respondents in both the applications. 2. C.WJ.C. No. 12994 of 2011 has been filed by the plaintiffs petitioners against the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by Sub Judge-5th, Siwan in Title Suit No. 165 of 2008, whereby the court below rejected the petition filed by the plaintiffs for adding subsequent purchaser as defendant No.4 in the suit for specific performance of contract. 3. The other C.W.J.C. No. 13934 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the said court rejecting the review application filed by the petitioners for reviewing the order challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 12994 of 2011. In view of the above facts both the writ applications are heard together in admission matter and disposed of by this common order. The result of the writ application arising out of the original order rejecting the application under ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpagandha Sinha, and Another Vs. Krishna Murari Sharan, Munger Dist ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of same judgement and order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna dated 2-12-2006 in Title Suit (Matrimonial) no. 37/1998. Since the application for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act preferred by the husband Krishna Murari Sharan was allowed, the main appeal bearing M.A. no. 672/2009 is by the wife Pushpagandha Sinha. The other matter is by way of cross appeal by the husband against the part of the judgement granting custody of minor son to the wife till the child attains the age of 15 years and alimony of Rs. 5,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month for the child. 2. Earlier both the appeals were heard and were dismissed by judgement and order dated 16-3-2010. That order was summary in nature passed at the stage of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the view for dismissing the appeals was largely on account of failure of efforts for amicable settlement of dispute between the spous...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Another
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
(1) Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. (2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar in pre-litigation case No.18 of 2011. (3) It appears that a pre-litigation case No.18 of 2011 was filed by the applicant-respondent against the opposite party-respondent in the Permanent Lok Adalat without making the present petitioner a party in the pre-litigation case. The petitioner claimed himself to be the full brother of the applicant and the pre-litigation case was filed for partition of the joint family property. The parties to the pre-litigation case compromised and on the basis of the compromise, the Lok Adalat passed the award. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said award on the ground that he was not made party in the pre-litigation case and that the respondent by playing fraud on the Permanent L...
Tag this Judgment!Laloo Roy Resident of Village Rampur-jagdish, P.S.Dariyapur, District ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. Oral: 1. Both the above appeals have been filed by the appellants named above against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.1988 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 1983/86 of 1988 by which all the appellants namely, Laloo Roy, Mahesh Roy, Munshi Roy, Bishwanath Roy, Paltu Roy, Ragho Roy (Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 14 of 1989),Ramreet Roy and Sanchit Roy (Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1989) have been convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Ramreet Roy and Sanchit Roy have further been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Paltu Roy has further been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences of appellants Ramreet Roy, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Devi Vs. the Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Pa ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 27.06.2007 vide Memo No.155 issued by the Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation rejecting the representations dated 10.03.2005 and 14.05.2007 filed by the petitioner for waiving of interest on balance consideration money treated as loan till the date of actual handing over of the possession of mortgaged assets sold by the Corporation and for payment of interest on deposit made from December, 2002 to 02.06.2006 and also for declaration that the respondent Corporation was not entitled to charge any interest on balance consideration money treated as loan till the assets were handed over to the petitioner and further for payment of interest to the petitioner by the Corporation on the amount of Rs.15 lacs deposited as cash component of the consideration money from December, 2002 till 02.06.2006 i.e. the date on which assets were handed over to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Sharma and Others Vs. Om Prakash and Others
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. Oral: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also the Respondent- Insurance Company. No one appears on behalf of the Private Respondents. 2. Both the appeals are directed against the order/award dated 9th of May 2008 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal) in Claim Case Nos. 234 of 2004 and 235 of 2004, as such, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The brief facts are that a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR IV 7347 was being driven by Dharmendra Kumar, husband of Binny Sharma, the claimant of Claim Case No. 234 of 2004. The pillion rider of the said motorcycle was Singheshwar Sharma, father of Dharmendra Kumar. The said motorcycle while going on the Hilsa Road, District Patna from North to South met an accident on the said road with Vikram Tempo (Auto Rickshaw) bearing Registration No. BR AP 0659, coming from South to North. The accident led to the death of Dharmendra Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhar Gopal Singh Vs. Gorakh Sah
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
1. Heard Mr.S.S.Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. M.N.Prabat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction which has been decreed by the appellate court in part reversing the judgment of the trial court whereby the suit was dismissed. The appellate court, after holding the requirement of the plaintiff to be bona fide and reasonable, however allowed only the partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises after considering the issue of partial eviction. 3. A cross objection has also filed on behalf of the respondent challenging the finding on the issue of personal necessity as recorded by the appellate court below and by order dated 24.02.2009 the said cross objection had also been ordered to be listed alongwith this appeal. Accordingly, both the second appeal and cross objection has been heard on merits. The parties to this appeal hereinafter be referred to by t...
Tag this Judgment!Sanju Kumari, Resident of Mohalla Bharaw, District Nalanda Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 25.4.2009, passed by the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Case No. Election 2/07, filed on behalf of Sanju Kumari. Sanju Kumari stood for election for the post of a Ward Member in the Biharsharif Municipal Corporation Elections held in the year 2007. The ground for challenge of the said election is that it is alleged that 800 voters of Ward No. 39 have been shifted to Ward No. 37 which has caused tremendous prejudice to the petitioner as it was done at a belated stage after scrutiny of the nomination papers. The facts are that the date of filing the nomination for the candidates was fixed in between 27.4.2007 to 5.5.2007. The scrutiny was to be held in between 6.5.2007 and 7.5.2007. It is alleged that the final voters list was varied and 800 voters were shifted to Ward No. 37 on 27.4.2007. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-1. Annexure-1 is the draft vote...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›