Court : Patna
1. The plaintiff-respondent brought Eviction Suit No.10 of 2008 against the defendant-petitioner under section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as „the B.B.C. Act‟) on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2. The petitioner took on rent suit premises situated on second floor of building standing on Plot No.160, Holding No.7938, Circle 249, Ward No.34, in Mohalla- New Punaichak, Boring Canal Road, Patna. The defendant-petitioner alleged that during the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent (plaintiff) disconnected the electric supply. The defedant/petitioner filed an application on 4.5.2011 before the trial court with a prayer to restore electric connection, under section 10 of the B.B.C. Act. 3. On the other hand, the plaintiff-respondent raised issue of maintainability and jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain an application for restoration of amenities snapped or withheld by landlord in its object...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants 1st set in Title Suit No. 87 of 2004, which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of their title and also for declaration that the defendants -petitioners did not acquire any title in the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 25-1-2004 executed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 (defendants 2nd set) in favour of these petitioners.2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21-12-2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna City, had rejected their petition for accepting written statement filed on their behalf in the Court below on 15-10-2004, beyond the period of ninety days as prescribed under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity).3. The short fact of this case is that the above mentioned title suit was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks, on various grounds, quashing of the proceedings for acquisition of a piece of her land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The subject of acquisition is a piece of land, 9.28 acres in area, forming part of survey plot Nos. 17 and 18 (with a total area of 13.98 acres) and situate at villages Ashikpur and Mugraura on the road connecting Jamalpur to Munger. The land was required for the construction of Block-cum-Circle Office, Jamalpur.2. The facts of the case are brief and can be stated thus. On a requisition made by the District Development Officer, Munger, vide his letter No.650, dated 29-3-1984 a land acquisition proceeding was started by the District Land Acquisition Officer. Munger. There is some confusion concerning the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is staled that, 'the notification under Section 4 of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
J.N. Singh, J. 1. C.W.J.C. No. 10445 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of notification dated 29.8.2003 (Annexure-1) issued from the Department of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), notifying that the services of the petitioner along with others were not found fit for absorption pursuant to the report of the Screening Committee, and therefore, their services are dispensed with from the date of issue of the notification.2. Case of the petitioner as per his pleadings is that he was appointed as temporary Professor by the Secretary of the Dhanwantari Ayurvedic College, Buxar by order dated 30.7.1973 vide Annexure-3. Petitioner joined the service and continued to perform his duties. By subsequent order dated 29.8.1973, as contained in Annexure-4, he was appointed as Principal Incharge by the Secretary. Further case of the petitioner is that while he was performing his duties in the College, his case was placed before the Expert Committee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions the issues involved being identical, they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In all the write petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992, which replaced the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Ordinance, 1992, The Ordinance was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on February 15, 1992, whereas the Act was assented to by the president of India on 4th April, 1992, and published in the Gazette on the same day.The petitioners have also impugned the demands made for payment of cess under the said Ordinance and the Act. The impugned demands in C.W.J.C. No. 1280/92(R) are Annexures 7, 8, 13 and 14, in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1711/92(R) and 1702/92(R) are Annexures 4 and 5, in C.W.J.C. No. 1507/92/(R) are Annexure 8 series and in C.W.J.C. No. 1639/92(R)and Armexures 5 to 5/5. The impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.7.1986 and 26.7.1986 respectively passed by the then Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh, in Money Suit No. 11 of 1982 whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,75,210.30 paise of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.2. The plaintiff was the erstwhile owner of Central Sounda Colliery and was dealing in coal business and in course of such business plaintiff supplied coal to the Northern Railway prior to 31.1.1973 and for that six separate bills for a total value of Rs. 1,97,887.30 paise were drawn up in the month of January, 1973, out of which an adjustment was made for Rs. 20,677/- and a balance of Rs. 1,77,210.30 paise remained outstanding. As per the plaintiffs case, Central Sounda Colliery was taken over of its management under the provisions of Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1973 on 31.1.1973, which was later on converted into an Act. Therea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent preferred by the respondent no.9 arises from the judgment and order dated 16th September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.12054 of 2010. The matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat Mohiuddinpur, P.S. Hansa, District-Samastipur under the then prevalent Scheme (hereinafter referred to as žthe SchemeŸ) and absorption as Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Rules of 2006?). The respondent no.10 Prashant Kumar approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No.12054 of 2010 to challenge the order dated 26th June 2010 made by the District Magistrate, Samastipur in Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2010 and the order of cancellation of his appointment made by the Gram Panchayat on 1st January 2009. It appears that as early as in April 2003, the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. The abovementioned First Appeals and (Civil Revisions) are taken up together for disposal as being heard analogously and the parties being the same. F.A. No. 146 of 1990 (R) has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 23 of 1968 whereas F.A. No. 54 of 1990(R) has been filed by the same appellantswho were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 10 of 1967. Similarly, F.A. No. 55 of 1990(R) has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 and the same appellants have filed F.A. No. 145 of 1990(R) in which they were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 23 of 1968. F.A. No. 82 of 1990(R) has been filed by the State of Bihar against Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 in which the State of Bihar was the defendant. 2. Analogous judgment in both the suits being Title Suit Nos. 10 of 1967 and 23 of 1968 have been passed by Shri C. S. Choubey, the then Subordinate Judge I, Giridih on 3-3-1990. The first suit in point of time is Title Suit No. 10 of 1967, which has been filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, C. B. L., Ranchi, in R. C. Case No. 16{A) /89(R) whereby and where under he convicted the appellant namely Chandu Mahato under Sections 120B, 420, 419, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code for a period of six months, one year, three years, five years, two years and five years respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in narrow compass is that in the year 1986 the appellant Chandu Mahto in conspiracy with some unknown persons impersonated himself as...
Tag this Judgment!