Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Tarini Mandal vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 February, 2005 cites

Ram Narain Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 August, 1972

A local enquiry was also made by the D.C.L.R. and subsequently by order dated 4.6.1997 claim of the petitioners as bataidar was allowed. Against this order respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal vide Revenue Appeal No. 24 of 1997, 98. The maintainability of this appeal was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the appeal under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act lies only against the order passed under Sub-section (7) or Sub-section (8) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. However, relying upon the decision in the case of Ram Narain Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1973 BLJR 662, the appeal was held maintainable. The Addl. Collector did not even discussed the case on merit and by order dated 16.11.1999 the appeal was allowed. This, order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kumar Kalika Nand Singh And Ors. vs Kumar Shiva Nandan Singh And Ors. on 19 July, 1921

In the case of Kalika Kuer v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1983 PLJR 1203, it has been held by this court that when decision has been rendered without taking into consideration and earlier decision or a provision of status, the same does not create a binding precedent. It was further held that a point not argued before a Bench cannot deter a subsequent Bench to decide the same."
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Vijay Narain Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 April, 1984

2. This order has been challenged by the petitioners on three grounds (1) that the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Purnea is without jurisdiction as under the provision of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act the appeal lies only against the orders passed under Sub-sections 7 & 8 of Section 48 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. No appeal is maintainable against the order passed under Sub-section 10 of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (2) The impugned order has been passed by the Addl. Collector relying on the decision in the case of flam Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) BLJR 662 which has no binding effect as it is a judgment in sub-silentio. (3) The Addl. Collector is not the appellate authority under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act as only the Collector of the District is authorised to exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act, the order impugned is without jurisdiction as it has been passed by the Addl. Collector.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 1399 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Mohd. Jainul Ansari And Ors. vs Mohd. Khalil on 10 May, 1990

It was a decision sub-silentio and for this petitioners counsel has placed reliance on 1990 (1) BLJR 51 Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1993 (2) BLJ 583 Shankar Prasad Sahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. and 1991 (1) BLJR 23 Md. Jainui Ansari and Ors. v. Md. Khalil. In 1991(1) BLJR 12 it has been held that the judgment rendered while ignoring the relevant provisions of statute must be held to be in per incuriam. Such judgment is not binding precedent for any co-equal Bench. In 1993(2) BLJ 583 while deciding a case under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Act it has been held that :
Patna High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 17 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Brij Bhukan Kalwar And Ors. vs S.D.O. Siwan And Ors. on 17 August, 1954

6. The decision reported in 1990 (1) BLJR 51 was with respect to Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956. While considering a question as to whether the provision of Section 4(c) 12-A-37 of the Consolidation Act are ultra vires. A special Bench decision of Ramkrit Singh's case (supra) was taker) into consideration and it was held that since in Ramkrit Singh's case the Special Bench did not consider the earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Brij Bhukhan Kalwar v. S.D.O. Siwan and Ors., AIR 1955 Patna 1 not it has taken into consideration the Full Bench decision in the case of Patna Municipal Corporation v. Rambachan Lal, 1961 BLJR 3. As much it must be held to have rendered per incuriam inasmuch as it is the case the special Bench did not consider the scope, effect and purport of Sections 4(B), 4(C) and 37 of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988

For coming to this conclusion in Kalika Kuer v. State of Bihar, reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, 1989 (1) SCC 101 wherein it has been held that a decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B. was not argued or considered by the court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specified outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub-silentio.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 817 - A P Sen - Full Document

Rasik Bihari Lal And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 May, 1960

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a Division decision in the case of Rasik Lal Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1979 BBCJ 10 followed by another decision reported in 1984 BBCJ 299 including 1985 PLJR 589 Ahmad Mian and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.. In 1985 BLJR 591 reliance has been placed on AIR 1977 Patna 315 Jairam Das Vatia and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.. In both these decisions it was not a question whether an appeal lies under Section 48F of the Act against an order passed under Sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, Only point which was raised was whether an appeal lies also against an order passed under Sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act or only against the order passed under Sub-section (8) of Section 48E of the Act. The finding recorded was that an appeal will lie under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act not only against the order passed under Sub-section (8) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act but also against the order passed under Sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In all these decisions, the Full Bench decision reported in 1973 PLJR, has neither been considered nor it has been discussed. There is no finding that appeal will lie against an order passed under Sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the circumstances, the argument advanced by the petitioners counsel has no force and he cannot assail the impugned order on this ground, that the question of maintainability of the appeal has wrongly been decided relying on the decision reported in 1973 BLJR 662.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Ahmad Mian And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 9 April, 1985

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a Division decision in the case of Rasik Lal Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1979 BBCJ 10 followed by another decision reported in 1984 BBCJ 299 including 1985 PLJR 589 Ahmad Mian and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.. In 1985 BLJR 591 reliance has been placed on AIR 1977 Patna 315 Jairam Das Vatia and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.. In both these decisions it was not a question whether an appeal lies under Section 48F of the Act against an order passed under Sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, Only point which was raised was whether an appeal lies also against an order passed under Sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act or only against the order passed under Sub-section (8) of Section 48E of the Act. The finding recorded was that an appeal will lie under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act not only against the order passed under Sub-section (8) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act but also against the order passed under Sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In all these decisions, the Full Bench decision reported in 1973 PLJR, has neither been considered nor it has been discussed. There is no finding that appeal will lie against an order passed under Sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the circumstances, the argument advanced by the petitioners counsel has no force and he cannot assail the impugned order on this ground, that the question of maintainability of the appeal has wrongly been decided relying on the decision reported in 1973 BLJR 662.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1