Court : Patna
j.n. bhatt, c.j.1. this group of two letters patent appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent of the patna high court arise out of an order and judgment of the learned single judge dated 3.1.2006 in c.w.j.c. no. 7018 of 2003.2. we have heard the learned counsels for the parties. we have examined the factual profile, as well as, testimonial collections. we have also taken into consideration, the relevant proposition of law of insurance arising out of the factual matrix.3. while l.p.a. no. 537 of 2006 is at the instance of the chief election officer, bihar, patna, l.p.a. no. 177 of 2006 is at the instance of branch manager, national insurance company limited.4. learned counsels appearing for the appellant insurance company have raised the following two contentions:(i) that though there was an insurance policy in force oh the unfateful day for the purpose of election work security, the death has not occurred during the course of election work or duty. thus, the insurance company appellant has repudiated the claim of the original writ petitioner-respondent widow of late nand kishore prasad yadav;(ii) that the surveyor of the insurance company could not locate the medical officer who had examined the deceased. this is the second ground to deny the accountability of payment of compensation arising out of the insurance policy for the election work.5. so far as the respondent original writ petitioner is concerned, it has been contended on her behalf that the insurance company is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.k. chattopadhyaya, j.1. in this application the order dated 18.12.1986 and 10.4.1987 have been impugned by reason of which the learned court below has refused to discharge the petitioner and framed charge against him under sections 377, 511 read with section 323 of the indian penal code.2. the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, f.i.r. was lodged by ones laltoo vishal on 16.7.1986 a servant working in a hotel alleging that he was sleeping on a road culvert and when he suddenly woke up and found that the petitioner, in order to commit unnatural act, opened his lungi and underwear, the informant raised hulla but the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. other servants also woke up and one of the servants was assaulted by the petitioner. the informant, out of fear, entered into a shop.after competition of investigation charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. the petitioner filed a petition for his discharge which was refused and ultimately charge aforesaid was framed against the petitioner.3. mr. p.s. dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the fir against the petitioner do not constitute an offence justifying the framing of charge under sections 377 and 511 of the indian penal code. he submits that in order to sustain conviction there must be proof of allegation of atleast penetration. in support of his contention he has relied on an unreported decision of this court dated 19.8.1986 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
nagendra rai, a.c.j.1. in these writ applications, the vires of rule 122, as amended by notification dated 28.2.2002, has been challenged primarily on the ground that the same is ultra vires article 243o of the constitution of india and sections 140 and 143 of the bihar panchayat raj act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). they have also challenged the orders passed by the state election commission in exercise of the said power disqualifying the office bearers of the panchayat as well as the orders by which the state election commission has rejected the prayer in some cases to disqualify the candidates on merit. in some cases, the elected members have incurred disqualification after election and the state election commission has also passed orders declaring them disqualified under the aforesaid rule, read with section 139(2) of the act.2. to appreciate the point, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the constitution and the act, at the very beginning. para ix dealing with the panchayats was inserted in the constitution of india by the constitution (seventy third amendment) act, 1992. part ix is a complete chapter dealing with the panchayats starting from is definitions, constitution, compositions, reservation of seats, duration, disqualification, finance and other ancillary provisions. article 243b of the constitution defines panchayat, according to which there shall be constituted in every state, panchayats at the village intermediate and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
n. pandey, j.1. this writ petition has been filed for appropriate writ/ order to quash the order of the deputy commissioner, dumka, dated 30-8-1991 in revenue misc. appeal no. 21 of 1991-92 whereby and whereunder, the further proceeding in settlement case no. 26 of 1985-86 was stayed.2. it appears a ceiling case was initiated against annapurna devi and ultimately at the stage of final publication certain lands were declared surplus. petitioners having learnt about the final publication and since no opportunity was given to them by the authority, filed c.w.j.c. no. 1316 of 1984, which was disposed of on 9-3-1984 directing the authorities to consider the objection of the petitioners filed under section 10(2) of the bihar land reforms (fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land) act, 1961, in short 'ceiling act'. the authorities were directed to decide whether petitioners were the real land-holders as claimed? since by the time, the petitioners could file objection under section 10(2) of the ceiling act, the ceiling case was finally disposed of, appeal no. 26 of 1984-85 was preferred before the deputy commissioner but the same was dismissed on 2-4-1985. faced with such situation, petitioners filed another writ application bearing c.w.j.c. no. 2922 of 1986, which was disposed of on 31-7-1986, reiterating the previous decision with a direction to the authorities that the objection filed by the petitioners under section 10(2) must be entertained and decided in their .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
b.l. yadav, j. 1. this second appeal by the plaintiffs has been preferred under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908(compendiously the 'code') against the decree and judgment of the 3rd additional district judge, purnia, setting aside the decree of the subordinate judge in a title suit brought by them for declaration that gift deed dated 25-3-1972 executed by haji zakiruddin the original plaintiff no. i in favour of the defendants was a sham and collusive transaction, and it did not create any title in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs have got till, over the suit land to the extent of -/8/10 paise. 2. shorn of details the case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the suit property having an area of 3.49 acres of land mentioned in schedule a of the plaint belongs to original plaintiff no. 1 haji zakiruddin and was recorded in his name. plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of haji zakiruddin. the third daugher named bibi aliman had pre-deceased hazi zakiruddin, plaintiff no. 1. hazi zakiruddin and defendants are descendants of common ancestors lapatu mian who had two wives and through his first wife, he has two sons, namely, late hazi zakiruddin and ajmat ali, the latter ajmat ah died leaving behind a son late masraf ali and the defendants are the sons of masaraf ali. plaintiff-hazi zakiruddin had share only to the extent of 20 bighas of land and on wrong advice of the counsel hazi zakiruddin executed the collusive registered deed of gift dated 25-3-1972 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.k. homchauduri, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the learned single judge in c.w.j.c. no. 1398 of 1994(r). by the impugned judgment, the writ-petition, c.w.j.c. no. 1398 of 1994(r) of respondent no. 5 of this appeal, was allowed.2. respondent no. 5 filed the writ-petition (c.w.j.c. no. 1398 of 1994 (r) for issue of an appropriate writ or direction commanding the civil surgeon, sadar hospital, ranchi (respondent no. 2) to act in accordance with the notification dated 6.6.1992 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued by the state government and not to accept the joining report of the appellant of this appeal, who was impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition. in the writ petition, respondent no. 5 contended as follows-(i) she was an m.s. in gynecology and obstetrics and she was appointed as lady medical officer in the department of health services, government of bihar, on and from 8.8.1983 and that while working as lady medical officer at giridih, by notification no. 1/t2-2-234/92/343 (2), dated 6.6.1992, issued by the government of bihar, department of health, medical education and family welfare, she was transferred and posted as lady medical officer in sadar hospital, ranchi, against the post which fell vacant due to transfer of dr. manju kumari, the appellant (respondent no. 5 in the writ-petition).(ii) in pursuant to the aforesaid order of transfer by notification dated 6.6.1992, she joined the post of medical .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR1996Pat13; 1994(42)BLJR670
1. these writ applications involve common questions and have been heard together. they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. in all the writ applications the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order of the vice-chancellor dated 6-8-1993 passed by him on the recommendation of the examination board, which resolved by its resolution dated 28-7-1993 that '0' (zero) marks be awarded to all those students who walked out, or stayed out, from the examination held on 15th, 16th, 19th and 20th april, 1993, in accordance with the relevant regulation. the petitioners herein are students of b. a. (honours) 1989-1992 batch, and by reason of the aforesaid recommendation of the examination board and the order of the vice-chancellor they have been awarded '0' marks in the papers in which they had stayed away/ walked out of the examination hall. in c.w.j.c. no. 8415 of 1993 the petitioners have also challenged the vires of the regulations framed under section 5(2) of the inter-university board act, 1981, on the ground that it gives unfettered and uncontrolled power to the authorities concerned to award '0' marks to the student concerned in the specified situations, without affording the student concerned an opportunity of being heard in the matter. however, at the hearing of these writ applications, counsel for the petitioners did not press the question of vires of the regulations.3. before adverting to the facts of the case, 1 may only notice the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
r.n. prasad, j.1. both the cases arise out of the order dated 23.12,2003 passed in misc. case nos. 11/2003 and 12/2003, whereby the miscellaneous cases were dismissed on the ground that title suit no. 116/89 was decreed on 9.5.2003 on contest and, as such, the court has no jurisdiction to set aside such decree. if the petitioners were aggrieved by the judgment, and decree passed in title suit no. 116/89 they could have filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree.2. the relevant facts of the case are that title suit no. 116/89 was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party for partition of their share in the joint family property, in which the mother of the petitioners was defendant no. 1, who died during pendency of the suit and, as such, the petitioners were substituted. the petitioners in c.r. no. 256/2004 appeared and also participated in the suit till framing of the issues and also filed an application for appointment of pleader commissioner, which was rejected. thereafter, they left pairvi in the case. the petitioners in c.r. no. 127/2004 did not appear in the suit. the court in such a situation fixed date for ex parte hearing and decreed the suit on 9.5.2003. the petitioners of c.r no. 127/2004 filed misc. case no. 12/2003 and the petitioners in c.r no. 256/2004 filed misc. case no. 11/2003 for setting aside the ex parte decree. the said miscellaneous cases have been dismissed by order dated 23.12.2003, as indicated above, on the ground that they are not- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.k. katriar, j.1. this application under order47 c.p.c has been filed for review of the judgment dated 17-7-1997, passed by a learned single judge of this court in mjc no. 746 of 1992(smt. vijay devi v. s.np. srivastava and ors.), whereby title (partition) suit no. 151 of 1991 (radha prasad v. kapildeo narain and ors.) was directed to be transferred from the court of learned sub-ordinate judge-iv, siwan, to the civil court, patna, to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction to be assigned by the learned district judge, patna.2. the suit had been instituted by radha prasad (deceased) for partition of the suit property. smt vijay devi, wife of the said kapildeo narain, is one of the defendants in the suit who filed the said mjc no. 746 of 1992 in this court under section 24 read with section 151 cpc to transfer the same from the siwan court to patna court, inter alia, on the ground that radha prasad, the plaintiff, was a leading lawyer at siwan and, therefore, lawyers of the choice of smt. vijay devi were not willing to accept her brief against him. the transfer was also sought on the ground that one parimal kumar (defendant no. 7), a lawyer at siwan and a member of the vigilance committee of the civil court has considerable influence in the bar association as a result of which she (smt. vijay devi) had not been able to engage a lawyer of her choice. notices had been issued to all the opposite parties who entered appearance through their counsel. as stated hereinabove, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
prasun kumar deb, j.1. both the appeals are taken up together as they arise out of the common judgment passed by shri l.k. sahay, the then 3rd additional judicial commissioner, ranchi, in matrimonial (title) suit no. 6 of 1988 and 10 of 1988, they were heard together as they arise out of the same party and same and similar dispute arose between the parties.2. admittedly the appellant and the respondent were married and their marriage was registered under the special marriage act on 28.10.1986 in calcutta within the jurisdiction of marriage officer, alipore. in that marriage, from the side of the appellant, her father was present while for and on behalf of the respondent, her mother was also present. after the marriage they lived together in calcutta then some times at jamshedpur and lastly at ranchi.3. it is the allegation of the appellant that the marriage was an arranged one fraud was practised from the side of the respondent in giving biodata of the respondent. he was shown to be commerce graduate having degree in m.b.a. and that he was proprietor of a private firm owned by him but soon after the marriage it could be found that he was neither a graduate nor having degree of business management nor he was a proprietor of the private firm whereas it was owned by his mother. it was further alleged by the appellant that the respondent had connected another marriage before, marriage the appellant. his first wife is mrs. manjari bhattacharjee having a daughter of 12 years named .....
Tag this Judgment!