Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: patna Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 51 results (0.023 seconds)

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

i.T.C. Limited Through Sri Jagdish Singh and anr. with Goodyear India ...

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

..... that would fall within the purview of article 301. the argument that all taxes should be governed by article 301 whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot be upheld. it was further held in paragraph 52 of the judgment that 'article 301 provides that trade .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2004 (HC)

Sunaina Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-10-2004

s.k. katriar, j.1. heard mr. manoj kumar ambastha for the petitioner, mr. abbas hsaider j.c. to gp no. ii for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and mr. dhruv narayan for respondent no. 5. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2002 (annexure- 7), passed by the learned divisional commissioner, munger, in munger revenue mutation revision no. 9/96-97 (sunaina devi v. sheonandan singh and ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner under section 17 of the bihar tenant's holdings (maintenance of records) act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable.2. according to the writ petition, the petitioner acquired right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dt. 31.12.85. thereafter she filed an application under the provisions of the act, for mutation which was registered as case no. 55/86-87. the learned circle officer, dharhara, passed his order dated 6.6.87 (annexure-2) also inviting objections. he passed orders for a general citation which was published soon thereafter, a copy whereof is marked annexure-2a to the writ petition. it is further stated in the writ petition that no objection was received. by order dated 13.7.87 (annexure-3), passed by the learned anchal adhikari, dharhara, the petitioner's application for mutation was allowed. aggrieved by the same, on sheo nandan singh filed the statutory appeal in items .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2004 (HC)

Nagendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jan-19-2004

chandramauli kumar prasad, j.1. this writ application was initially filed to quash the notice dated 23.9.2003 (annexure-1) whereby the executive officer of the panchayat samiti, gurua had issued notice for convening the meeting of the panchayat samiti to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner. during the pendency of the application, no confidence motion has been carried out against the petitioner. by way of amendment, the prayer is to quash the resolution dated 30.9.2003 of the panchayat samiti carried out the motion of no confidence against the petitioner.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as pramukh of gurua panchayat samiti on 12th of june, 2001. the executive officer of the said samiti issued notice dated 23.9.2003 informing the members of the panchayat samiti that a meeting shall be held on 30th of september, 2003 to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner. petitioner challenged the same by filing the present writ application but during the pendency of the application, the meeting was held and a no confidence motion has been carried out against the petitioner.3. mr. rajendra prasad singh, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points to assail the notice and the resolution of no confidence motion passed against the petitioner but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, i deem it inexpedient either to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2004 (HC)

Chinta Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jul-14-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. this application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 7.1.2003 of the panchayat samiti, tarari whereby motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner happens to be the pramukh of panchayat samiti, tarari. a requisition to convene the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion was given to her. for one or the other reasons, she did not convene the special meeting and thereafter 13 members decided to call the meeting on 31.12.2002 and requested the executive officer of the panchayat samiti to issue notice. in compliance of the said order, the executive officer of the panchayat samiti sent notice dated 1.1 2003 intimating to the members that 7.1.2003 is the date fixed for holding the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner the meeting as directed was held and no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner.3 mr. verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raises a very short point. he submits that the notice does not conform to the requirement of seven days clear notice as provided under section 44 (4) of the bihar panchayat raj act. he points out that notice was sent on 1.1.2003 whereas the date of the meeting fixed was 7.1.2003 and thus, notice did not give seven clear days for holding the special meeting. in support of his submission, he has placed reliance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2004 (HC)

Sitaram Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Aug-04-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. initially this writ application was filed for quashing the notice dated 22.2.2003 issued by the executive officer communicated to the members that a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion brought against the pramukh and up-pramukh shall be held on 28.2.2003. thereafter, the no confidence motion has been passed and their prayer is to quash the said resolution.2. shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner's are pramukh and up- pramukh of panchayat samiti narhat. a notice was given by the members to convene special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioners. the executive officer, by the impugned notice dated 22.2.2003 (annexure-3), conveyed to the members that the meeting to consider the no confidence motion shall be held on 28.2.2003. in the meeting so held, no confidence motion was passed against the petitioners and during the pendency of the application, it is common ground that other members have been elected as pramukh and up-pramukh of the panchayat samiti.3. in the writ application, several points have been raised but when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice informing to the members about the date of the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion, does into conform to the requirement of section 44(4) of the bihar panchayat raj act, hereinafter referred to as the act. it is pointed out .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2004 (HC)

Smt. Rambha Sinha Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-12-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j.1. this application has been filed for quashing the notice (annexure-4) issued by the executive officer of panchayat samiti, katra intimating that the special meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on. 7.1.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence brought against the pramukh. by way of amendment prayer of the petitioner is to quash another notice (annexure-9) issued by the executive officer dated 4.2.2002 conveying that the special meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on 11.2.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence against the pramukh. petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 11.2.2002 whereby the motion of no confidence has been carried out against her.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as the pramukh of the panchayat samiti, katra and a requisition (annexure-1) to convene a special meeting of the panchayat samiti was given to her to consider the no confidence motion. petitioner by order dated 29.12.2001 (annexure-2) rejected the said prayer, inter alia, on the ground that out of 30 members 18 have shown their confidence in her. ultimately the executive officer of the panchayat samiti gave notice intimating to the members that special meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on 7.1.2002 to consider the no confidence motion brought against the petitioner. the meeting as scheduled was held and 15 members voted in favour .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2004 (HC)

Mithelesh Pati Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-15-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. this application has been filed for quashing the no confidence motion dated 10.10.2002 passed against the petitioner removing him from the office of parmukh of the panchayat samiti and notice to that effect dated 10.10.2002 (annexure-1).2. in the thicket of facts pleaded, facts which are necessary for the decision of the present application are that the petitioner was elected as parmukh of panchayat samiti, bagha-i, hereinafter referred to as the samiti, members of the said samiti gave notice dated 18.9.2002 requesting the petitioner to convene the special meeting of the samiti to consider the no confidence motion brought against him. ultimately the executive officer issued notice dated 3.10.2002 (annexure-2) conveying that the special meeting of the samiti shall be held on 10.10.2002 and the item of agenda would be the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner. meeting was so held and the motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner.3. mr. s.s. dvivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points to assail the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, i deem it inexpedient either to incorporate or answer the same. he submits that the notice dated 3.10.2002 fixing 10.10.2002 as the date for holding the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner does not conform to the requirement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2004 (HC)

Anita Kumari and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Dec-15-2004

r.s. garg, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this order shall finally dispose of cwjc no. 4986 and cwjc no. 10727 of 2003.3. it appears from the records of cwjc no. 4986 of 2003 that anita kumari was elected as a pramukh of panchayat samiti, patory, samastipur. it also appears from the records that after her election a requisition was made by some dissatisfied persons to convene a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against anita kumari. it also appears that up-pramukh took cognizance in the matter and directed the block development officer-cum-chief executive officer, patori to convene a meeting. a notice for convening the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was issued on 10.1.2003 (annexure-4). it was clearly mentioned that the meeting would be convened on 17.1.2003. the meeting was accordingly convened on 17.1.2003 and the petitioner was voted out.4. being aggrieved by the said resolution smt. anita kumari has filed cwjc no. 4986 of 2003. after her removal the elections were conducted and ram yatan roy was elected as pramukh of the said panchayat samiti.5. from the records of cwjc no. 10727 of 2003 it would appear that a no-confidence motion was made against said ram yatan roy and in the meeting convened on 22.8.2003 he was also voted out.6. being aggrieved by the resolution expressing no-confidence said ram yatan roy has filed cwjc no. 10727 of 2003.7. i am told that after removal of ram yatan roy, fresh elections have taken place and smt. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2004 (HC)

ish. Md. Mian @ Ishmohamad Mian and anr. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Patna

Decided on : Dec-08-2004

mridula mishra, j.1. both the appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order dated 8th august, 2001 passed by the 2nd additional sessions judge, west champaran, bettiah, in sessions trial no. 494 of 1997 arising out of sikarpur p.s. case no. 89 of 1997. hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under section 302/34 of the indian penal code.2. prosecution case based on the fardbeyan of sattar ansari, (pw 5) recorded by the s.i. of sikarpur police station on 18th june, 1997 at about 1 p.m. is that on 17th june, 1997 at about 4 p.m. his brother bikhi mian had cut away branches of bamboo belonging to ish mohamad mian as branches had covered as shed over barhar, kadam and sarifa trees belonging to the informant. at about 7-30 p.m. ish mohamad mian asked sattar ansari (pw 5) from his darwaja as to why he had cut away the branches of bamboo trees upon which sattar ansari and his brother replied that they had cut away branches of bamboo as it was damaging their plants. some altercation took place and ish mohamad mian started abusing the informant and his brother. in the meantime, son of ish mohamad mian, jamaluddin came out from his house with double edged sword and said that he will cut the person who had cut his bamboo. bikhi mian, brother of the informant also came out and said that he was going to cut bamboo and was ready to see what was done to him. as soon .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2004 (HC)

Smt. Phoolmanti Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Sep-01-2004

r.s. garg, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. petitioner smt. phoolmanti devi was elected as pramukh of noorsarai panchayat samiti. it appears that certain members of the panchayat samiti were aggrieved by her conduct, therefore, they submitted a letter to convene a meeting on 5.6.2003 making certain allegations against the present petitioner and expressing their no confidence. the meeting was requisitioned but unfortunately was adjourned. thereafter, on 18.7.2003 some of the members of the panchayat samiti again submitted a no confidence requisition and required the pramukh/ authority to requisition the meeting. the meeting was directed to be held on 26.7.2003. a notice was issued on 19.7.2003. from annexure 1 it appears that the meeting was convened on 26.7.2003. the present petitioner and the up pramukh smt. renu kumari (petitioner in cwjc no. 10636 of 2003) came to take part in the meeting but after some time, they left the meeting. with the consent of the majority, one bhikhari prasad was nominated to chair the meting and thereafter the resolution was considered and ultimately no confidence motion was carried out. on the very same day, the up pramukh renu kumari was also removed from her office. each of the persons so removed, being aggrieved by their removal are before this court. at the instance of smt. phoolmanti devi cwjc no. 8037 of 2003 has been filed and cwjc no. 10636 of 2003 has been filed by renu devi and another.3. learned counsel for each of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //