Court : Patna
sudhir kumar katriar, j.1. heard earned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.90, passed by sri uma shankar, addl. claims tribunal, hazaribagh, in claim case no. 11 of 1981 sapuran devi v. telco, whereby the claimants have been granted compensation amounting to rs. 1,31,000 under the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), along with interest. respondent nos. 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as telco), are manufacturers of trucks in their factory as jamshedpur. after manufacturing the trucks without bodies thereupon, the same are despatched to different destinations in the country. on 4.4.81, the chassis in question with a temporary permit had been despatched from jamshedpur for ludhiana. at kujju, a village between ranchi and ramgarh, the chassis in question had knocked down one upendra manjhi, who was then working as a constable in the service of bihar government and was aged 26 years. he died on 6.4.81, leaving behind claimant no. 1 (most. sapuran devi), and three children, being the other claimants. they are respondent nos. 1 to 4 before me. thereafter, the claimants filed an appropriate application under the act for compensation. after considering the materials on record, learned tribunal by the impugned judgment has quantified the compensation at rs. 1,31,000 with interest @ 12% from the date of the application till the date of the payment. the same was directed to be paid within a period of two .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.k. katriar, j.1. both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment the plaintiff is the appellant, and parties shall be described by this position in the trial court.2. first appeal no. 102 of 1977 (r), arises out of judgment and decree dated 20th december, 1976, passed by shri j.k. prasad, first additional subordinate judge, jamshedpur, in money suit no. 61 of 1966, whereby he dismissed the suit. the same was instituted, inter alia, for the following reliefs:(i) a declaration that the central excise and salt act of 1944 and the rules thereunder are invalid insofar as they impose the obligation of payment of duty on articles as a condition of their removal without any machinery or procedure for assessment of disputed liabilities.(ii) a direction to the defendants to refund the disputed amount of rs. 41,79,141.68 of excise duty levied which has been collected from the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till date of realisation.(iii) a decree quashing the aforesaid orders passed(a) by the assistant collector of central excise, jamshedpur;(b) by the collector for central excise, patna; and(c) by the government of india in the ministry of finance.(iv) a direction cancelling the debit made in the current account of the plaintiff in respect of duty levied on steel ingot produced out of old steel skull scraps.(v) a decree for the costs of the suit may also be passed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
b.n. singh 'neelam', j.1. this criminal appeal is so preferred under section 374(2) of the code of criminal procedure by the sole accused-appellant, namely, mohan pandey, against the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed by the 7th addl. sessions judge, arrah, dated 19th of july, 1989 in section tr. no. 377 of 1988 by virtue of which the sole accused-appellant is convicted under sections 307 of the indian penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 355 of the i.p.c and r.i. for seven years under section 307, i.p.c. the sentences so imposed are directed to run concurrently.2. the prosecution case, in short, is that on 1.5.1988 when the first informant, namely, smt. anita kumari was sleeping in her parent's house at about 4 a.m. in the morning her mother had left the house for performing puja at brahmpur and had locked the house from outside throwing the key on the roof of the house. when on the first floor, as per the prosecution story, the first informant anita pandey was sleeping and at that time, there was no other family member in the house the said key was so given by the mother of the first informant by throwing the same on the roof which was so received by her and after the departure of the mother anita pandey slept but within ten minutes on finding movement of some persons she got up and could locate the sole accused-appellant mohan pandey scaling and coming over the roof of her house-house of the sole accused- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
sudhir kumar katriar, j. 1. this second appeal arises out of judgment dated 21-8-93, and the consequent decree, passed by smt. vidyut prabha singh, 5th addl. judicial commissioner, ranchi, in title appeal no. 89 of 1990 (smt. lalin devi and anr. v. krishna prasad), whereby she has set aside the judgment dated 10-8-90, passed by sri kiran shankar, munsif, ranchi, in t.s. no. 47 of 1989 (smt. lalin and ors. v. krishna prasad). the defendant is the appellant against a judgment of reversal. the suit had been dismissed by the trial court, and the plaintiffs appeal was allowed. for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal we shall go by the description of the parties in the suit. 2. this is an unfortunate litigation amongst first decree relations. plaintiff no. 1 is the mother, plaintiff no. 2 is her son, the sole defendant is the grand-son of plaintiff no. 1, and the son of plaintiff no. 2 from his first wife. the mother of the defendant (i.e. the first wife of plaintiff no. 2) died when the defendant was six months old, whereafter plaintiff no. 2 married a second wife, the defendant, therefore, fell in the care of his grand-mother, i.e. plaintiff no. 1 and was brought up by her. on account of natural love and affection, plaintiff no. 1 executed a registered deed of gift dated 6-3-87 (ext. 4), in favour of the defendant with respect to the suit property which was a small plot of land along with a kachacha house thereupon. the suit property is the absolute property of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
deokinandan prasad, j.1. this criminal revision has been filed under section 19(4) of the family courts act against the order dated 27.9.1997 passed by principal judge, dhanbad in cr. misc. no. 2/95 whereby and whereunder the learned principal judge had enhanced the maintenance payable to the opposite party from rs. 200/- to rs. 500/- per month under section 127 of the cr.p.c.2. the opposite party, namely, pramila devi filed an application under section 125 of the cr.p.c. for maintenance from the petitioner/husband at the rate of rs. 500/- per month. the petitioner also appeared in the said case and after hearing both the parties, the court below granted maintenance of rs. 200/- per month in favour of the opposite parry by an order dated 17.3.1994.3. the opposite party again filed a petition under section 127, cr.p.c. on 29.8.1995 for enhancement of the maintenance amount from rs. 200/- to rs. 500/- per month. it was stated that the petitioner has married second time with niriya devi, daughter of liloo mahto and as such the maintenance of rs. 200/- may be enhanced to rs. 500/- per month. after hearing both sides, the principal judge enhanced the maintenance amount from rs. 200/- to rs. 500/- per month by order impugned, hence this revision.4. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no mention or assertion in the petition that the petitioner got employment or having any independent source of income after passing of the initial order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
a.k. ganguly, j.1. while the petitioner was working as junior electrical engineer, electric supply section, triveniganj district supaul under koshi area electricity board, saharsa, in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, he was put under suspension on 8.6.1998 by an order of the same date and thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge memo vide memo no. 284 dated 24.3.1999. the petitioner challenged the said suspension order by filing a writ petition being c.w.j.c. no. 2443 of 1999. the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 26.3.1999 by a learned judge of this court with a direction upon the respondents to complete the departmental inquiry within a particular time. thereafter, the suspension order issued against the petitioner was revoked by an order dated 22.7.1999 and was made effective from 21.7.1999 instead of 22.7.1999. in the said enquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 5.7.1999. in the said report the inquiry officer after going through the records of the case and holding an inquiry found that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved.2. thereafter, a purported second show-cause notice dated 2.8.1999 was served upon the petitioner in which the authorities of the board expressed disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and held that the charges are proved on certain grounds and the petitioner was asked to show-cause against certain punishment mentioned in the said second show-cause notice. on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
aftab alam, j.1. this writ petition arises from a mutation proceeding and the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders passed in that proceeding. at first, the circle officer, siwan, the authority of the first instance, decided the dispute against the petitioner by his order, dated 5-5-1995 passed in mutation case no. 9/95-96 (a copy whereof is annexure-2). the petitioner preferred an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the deputy collector land reforms by order, dated 20-7-1996 passed in mutation case no. 42/95. the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision. here, it is significant to note that the petitioner filed his revision petition in the court of additional collector, and not before the collector of the district, siwan. the revision petition was also dismissed by order, dated 24-7-1999 passed by the additional collector, siwan in mutation appeal no. 228/96-97/15/99-2000.2. it was only then that it seems to have occurred to the petitioner that the additional collector had no revisional power and section 16 of the bihar tenants' holdings (maintenance of records) act, 1977 conferred the revisional power only on the collector of the district. in this writ application, the order passed by the additional collector was, therefore, challenged as being without jurisdiction or authority and hence a nullity in the eyes of law. in the writ petition though, the court was never told that it was the petitioner himself who had filed the revision before the additional .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.j. mukhopadhyaya, j.1. the writ petition was initially filed by one manoj kumar to recommend his name and to appoint him to the post of assistant teacher (hindi) in any nationalised high school in pursuance of advertisement no. 2/91 on the ground that he (petitioner) is an handicapped. subsequently, one intervenor application (i.a. no. 2823/2000) was filed by four others, namely, gajendra jha, om prakash chaudhari, smt. indu singh arid janardan singh to implead them as party-petitioner to the writ petition and to grant them similar relief, they being handicapped.2. the fact as pleaded and not disputed shows that an advertisement no. 2/91 was published by the vidyalaya sewa board, patna (board for short) for appointment to the post of assistant teachers in nationalised high schools. such advertisement was published on the requisition of the state, when a guideline no. 148 dated 21st november, 1990 was, in vogue, to provide certain benefit of reservation to handicapped persons against their respective reserved vacancies the divisional level and district level posts. the petitioners being eligible for appointment to the post of assistant teacher (hindi) applied, claiming themselves to be handicapped. they were asked to appear in the interview held in december 1996.the board, on selection published the merit list on 22nd january, 1996 showing the petitioners as successful in the selection under the category of 'handicap'. however, when the director, secondary education .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... both these appeals were heard together as both the appeals crime out of a common judgment passed by the motor vehicle accident claim tribunal-cum-additional district judge, jamshedpur, in misc. ..... it is true that after the accident two sons of the deceased got employment. ..... as a result of the accident, o.p. ..... briefly stating, both the claim case arose out of the same accident. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
deoki nandan prasad, j.1. this application under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure has been filed by the sole petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.11.1998 passed by the learned sessions judge, dhanbad in nirsa ps case no. 0090/1996 corresponding to g.r. no. 1896 of 1996, under which the learned sessions judge held that the accused/petitioner was prima facie liable under sections 323, 417, 452, i.p.c. and as such charge therein were required to be framed against him. the petitioner had also moved earlier before this court vide criminal revision no. 83/98 (r) challenging the order dated 27.3.1998 passed by sessions judge, dhanbad and this court remitted the matter to the learned sessions judge, dhanbad for fresh consideration on the discharge petition. thereafter, the petitioner again moved before the sessions judge, who passed the impugned order.2. the short facts giving rise to this application that one manju kumari lodged first information report on 5.7.1996 alleging therein that she was living with the petitioner as husband and wife for the last one year and the petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her on an assurance that he would marry her. this relation continued for quite some time and whenever manju kumari asked the petitioner to marry her in future. it is further alleged that on 21.2.1996 at about 6 p.m., the family members including the petitioner entered into her house and assaulted the relatives of he informant. the mother of the .....
Tag this Judgment!