Lok Sabha functioning without its Ethics Committee

The Committee of Privileges during the 11th Lok Sabha constituted a Study Group on 31 January, 1997 for undertaking study of Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and related matters. The Study Group visited Australia, United Kingdom and United States America to study ethics and standards of conduct of Members. The Committee attended the symposium at the Presiding Officers Conference at Shimla on 23 October, 1997 on the subject 'Need for Constitution of the Ethics Committees in Legislatures in India.'

The report was laid on the Table during the 12th Lok Sabha on 28 March, 1998. In the 13th Lok Sabha, the un-finished agenda was brought to the notice of the Committee of Privileges. It recommended that a separate Ethics Committee be constituted in Lok Sabha. This report was presented to the Speaker on 4 April, 2000 and was laid on the Table on 18 April, 2000. 

Pursuant to the report, the Speaker 13th Lok Sabha constituted the first Ethics Committee in Lok Sabha on 16 May, 2000 with the following terms of reference namely:-

(a) to oversee the moral and ethical conduct of the Members; and

(b) to examine the cases referred to it with reference to ethical and other misconduct of the Members.

The Committee on Ethics (Thirteenth Lok Sabha) in their First Report, which was laid on the Table of the House on 22 November, 2001 and adopted by the House on 16 May, 2002.  The Committee on Ethics (Fourteenth Lok Sabha) was also governed by the me terms of reference as laid down initially at the time of constitution of the Committee during the Thirteenth Lok Sabha.

The Report of Ethics Committee was presented to Speaker, Lok Sabha on 16 December, 2014 and laid on the Table of the House on 18 December. 2014. In 17th Lok Sabha, the Committee was constituted by Speaker, on 9th October, 2019. In the 18th Lok Sabha, the Ethics Committee has not been constituted as yet. 

Division Bench sets aside Justice Purnendu Singh's judgement, remits it back to him for reconsideration

In Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 16-page long judgment dated February 26, 2026, wherein, it concluded: ".....we find that there is perversity in the impugned order and hence, we feel it proper to set aside the same and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the case on merits. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration of the matter and be placed before the Hon’ble Judge dealing with such matters as per roaster. 13. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the accusation leveled against the appellant, the punishment imposed and whether the same would be legally sustainable on the basis of the materials available on record, as was produced before the disciplinary authority. It is open to the learned Single Judge to consider the same on its own merits. 14. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated, hereinabove." It was Justice Purnendu Singh who had passed the judgement dated December 20, 2024 as the Single judge.

The eight other respondents were: Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Director General of Police, Bihar, Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga, Inspector General of Police, Modernization, Bihar, Patna-cum-Enquiry Authority and Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.

In the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) That this is an application for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Resolution as contained in Memo No. 10819 dated 26.10.2022 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and where under the punishment of censure (Nindan) (w.e.f. allegation year) and withholding the two increment with non cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner and further for quashing the resolution as contained in Memo No3253 dated 7.3.2023 issued under the signature of same very officer i.e., Deputy Secretary, Home Police Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and where under departmental appeal/ review petition of the petitioner has been rejected on erroneous grounds as well as on wrong facts which has been communicated to the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police (BSAP) Headquarter, Patna vide letter no.794 dated 16.3.2023 and subsequently same has been communicated to the petitioner by the Commandant, BSAP-9, Jamalpur vide memo no.37 dated 22.03.2023 and further directing the respondent authorities to issue integrity certificate of the petitioner and further for issuance of any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders it may deem fit and proper by the High Court.

(ii) That this Interlocutory application is being filed for addition in the prayer portion that to grant promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 01/12/2020 and further for pass any appropriate order or orders it may deem fit and proper.

(iii) That this Interlocutory application is being filed for addition in the prayer portion to quash the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer to the extent of finding/opinion with respect to Charge No. 1 and 2 as same is perverse.

(iv) That this Interlocutory application is being filed for addition in the prayer portion for also quashing memorandum of charge as contained in memo no. 6551 dated 9.8.2019 along with resolution as contained in memo no. 1072 dated 5.2.2021 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar without approval of competent authority i.e. Governor, Bihar.

The counsel of the appellant had submitted that even though the re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible but the Single Judge should have appreciated the points raised that the findings of the disciplinary authority on charges nos. 1 and 2 are wholly arbitrary and based on no evidence. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India -Vrs.- Biswanath Bhattacharjee, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329, wherein, the Court held in paragraph no.21 that if the finding of the disciplinary authority is beyond record i.e. no evidence or based on irrelevant or extraneous factors or by ignoring material evidence, some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of no evidence or perversity cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials and the findings of the disciplinary authority.

The counsel for the appellant also argued that even though out of seven charges framed against the appellant, two charges were stated to have been proved, but the materials available on record justifies that the disciplinary authority had erred in holding that the two charges had been proved and therefore, there was perversity in the finding of the disciplinary authority imposing the minor punishment. It was argued that the appellant has been seriously prejudiced, inasmuch as even though he had challenged the imposition of such penalty on merits, but the same was not considered.

Chief Justice Sahoo observed: "10.....we are of the humble view that since specific challenges were made to quash the imposition of punishment vide resolution dated 26.10.2022 as well as the orders passed under departmental appeal/review, the learned Single Judge should have considered the grounds taken in the writ petition as to whether it is a fit case for quashing the resolution of imposing punishment of censure and withholding of two interments with non-cumulative effect or not and should not have disposed of the writ petition holding that since the appellant had already suffered two increments, therefore, he was entitled for being promoted after the expiry of the penalty. When it is the case of the appellant that there being no evidence whatsoever available on record to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the two charges, it should have been examined. If the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. Of course, adequacy and reliability of the evidence should not be gone into and the High Court should not interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. Needless to say that infliction of punishment of withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect along with censure casts stigma on the Government servant, visit the Officer with civil consequences, affecting his future career, and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge should have considered the matter on its merits, has got substantial force."

In his judgement, Justice Singh had taken notice, particularly, sub clause (i) and (iv) of the Explanation-2 of Rule 14 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which are reproduced hereinafter:

14. Minor and Major Penalties.

Explanation (2). (i)Censure. The Censure shall be entered in the character roll of the year the allegation or omission & commission. The adverse effect of censure on the confirmation and promotion of concerned Government Servant shall be for next three consecutive years after the year of allegation or omission & commission for which he or she is censured. For example, if a Government Servant is censured for the allegation or omission & commission of the year 2002-2003, it shall be entered in the character roll of 2002-2003 and its adverse effect shall be from the year 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. Such Government Servant who has been awarded with three censures, shall be deemed to be fit for promotion only if after expiry of the period of adverse effect of last (third) censure, during the next five years his work and conduct of at least three years is extraordinary and has not been awarded any adverse remarks for the period of next five years. For example, if the adverse effect of third censure of a Government servant expires in 2002 and his promotion is due in 2008 or before that, in that case his promotion shall be deemed to be due in 2008, i.e. five years after the expiry of adverse effects of last censure, with the condition that during the five years of 2003 to 2007 his work and conduct of at least three years is extraordinary and during the said five years he has not been awarded any adverse remarks.

iv)Withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect. Such penalty shall be effective from the date of issue of order, i.e. the increments due after the issue of the order shall be withheld. It will be essential to mention clearly the number of annual increments withheld in the order by the disciplinary authority. After the communication of order of penalty the increment shall remain withheld from the due date of next increment. For example, if two increments of a Government Servant are withheld without cumulative effect, it will mean that after the date of communication of order of penalty. from the due date of next increment till one year the first increment and from the second due date till one year the second increment shall remain withheld. As the penalty is without cumulative effect, the salary from the due date of third increment after the withholding of increments shall be paid with increment after adding the stages of both the withheld increments, but the financial benefit of withheld period shall not be admissible. No promotion shall be considered during the period of operation of this penalty, i.e. for the number of years the increments are withheld. Only after the expiry of the period of penalty, it will be possible to consider on the promotion from the due date."

Justice Singh had concluded: "In view of the fact that petitioner has suffered already two increments, he becomes entitled for being promoted after expiry of the penalty and the adverse effect will amount to lose its force making the petitioner entitled for being considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) soon so that the petitioner may not further demoralize, as junior to him have been promoted." The judgement has been set aside by the Division Bench.

Delay in giving FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt prosecution case

In Jagdamba Harijan vs. The State (2026), Allahabad High Court's Division Bench of Justices Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Rajesh Singh delivered a judgment dated February 12, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"39. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court balancing the gravity of the offence with the principles of justice and need of the society to live in a peaceful, safe and congenial environment with chance of reformation and integrating the appellant into the society, this Court is of the considered view that justice would be met, if the appellant is awarded a fixed term of imprisonment in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction under Section 304, 326A, 452 I.P.C., the maximum sentence of life awarded to the appellant- Jagdamba Harijan is reduced to a fixed term of 14 (Fourteen years) Rigorous Imprisonment. However, the fine under Section 304 and 326A I.P.C. and the punishment and fine under Section 452 is not being disturbed and are affirmed. 40.Consequently, the present Appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 41. Having said so, it is directed that the appellant - Jagdamba Harijan shall be released only after undergoing the aforesaid sentence of punishment of 14 years, rigorous imprisonment, under the Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2015; arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2014; (State V/s Jagdamba Harijan), if he is not required in any other case. The Jail Authorities are accordingly directed to compute the period of custody, extending to the appellant the benefit of Section 427 and 428 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law."

The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Masalti vs. State of U.P., reported as AIR 1965 SC 202. It held as under:-

"14. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

Therefore, the High Court did not find any force in the submission of the the  counsel for the defense and as such the same is rejected.

It observed:"34. Thus, from the conceptus of the evidence brought on record and considering the testimony of the eye-witness, corroborated by the medical witness and the Investigation Officer, Court finds that the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt the charges under Sections 304, 326A and 451 I.P.C. against the Appellant. A reading of the entire statement and cross-examination fully established the charges against the accused/appellant. It is trite that eye witness testimony is given importance and the trial Court has given due weight to the said evidences and this Court does not find any error in the Trial Court's appreciation of their evidences. Further, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court nowhere missed the woods for the tree in returning the findings of guilt against the Appellant. This Court does not find any infirmity in the Judgment dated 30.08.2018 of the Learned Trial Court passed in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2015 (State vs. Jagdamba Harijan), arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2014, relating to Police Station Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh and as such the said judgment of conviction is upheld."

The High Court's judgment referred to Supreme Court in Edakkkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. vs. State of Kerala, reported as 2025 INSC 28; while observing that the investigation had not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner refused to give any relief to the accused persons by referring to an earlier judgment of the Apex court in Paras Yadav & Ors. V/s State of Bihar, reported in 1999(2) SCC 126. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ekakkandi Dineshan (Supra) held as follows:

32.".... Hence, the principle of law is crystal clear that on the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc. It has been a consistent stand of this court that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency.,"

Supreme Court in Birbal Nath vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 190 held that mere variation in two statements would not be enough to discredit a witness. Further, it is trite law that only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. Minor omission in the statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. It is quite natural that there is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. (Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (9) SCC page 525). 

The High Court observed:"Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report."

It added: "23. No doubt, prompt lodging of F.I.R. is a significant step in ascertaining its reliability. However, there is no mathematical formulae by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of F.I.R. In this connection it would be useful to note that the Hon'ble Supreme court in Tara Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1991 Suppl.(1) SCC 536); and Jamna vs. State of U.P. reported in (1994 (1) SCC 185); observed that by nc 18/31 settled that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Court acknowledged the fact that knowing the Indian conditions as they are, it cannot be expected from villagers to rush to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence of the incidence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the Police Station for giving the report."

The High Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gian Chand, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 71. A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed:

"Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the

In Ravinder Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 690; Supreme Court  held that:-"The attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing the first information to the police. It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even a promptly lodged FIR is not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident."

It added:"We are not providing an exhausting catalogue of instances which could cause delay in lodging the FIR. Our effort is to try to point out that the stale demand made in the criminal courts to treat the FIR vitiated merely on the ground of delay in its lodgment cannot be approved as a legal corollary. In any case, where there is delay in making the FIR the court is to look at the causes for it and if such causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version no consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR. [Vide Zahoor vs. State of UP (1991 Suppl.(1) SCC 372; Tara Singh vs. State of Punjab (1991 Suppl.(1) SCC 536); Jamna vs. State of UP (1994 (1) SCC 185). In Tara Singh (Supra) the Court made the following observations:"It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case." 

Patna High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey delivered 370 judgements during October 7, 2021-February 28, 2026

Patna High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey delivered 370 judgements during October 7, 2021-January 21, 2026 in 

1 Cr. Wjc-1142/2021 Saroj Kumar @ Saroj Thakur  Vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna. 08-Oct-2021

2 C.Misc.-509/2020 Rajiv Kumar Agrawal Vs. Jitendra Narayan Agrawal 14-Dec-2021

3 C.Misc.-309/2021 Mini Kumari @ Minni Kumari Vs. Mrinal Kanti 16-Dec-2021

4 C.Misc.-358/2021 Lakshaman Ray @ Laxman Yadav Vs. Ram Bilash Yadav 03-Mar-2022

5 Cwjc-10054/2019 Patna Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Aug-2022

6 MA-256/2017 Smt. Sarita Devi @ Sarita Singh Vs. Antaryami Singh 17-Oct-2022

7 LPA-1631/2017 Dipak Kumar Tripathi Vs. The Joint Director, Consolidation Bihar, Patna And Anr 17-Oct-2022

8 LPA-479/2022 Sikandar Mandal Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Oct-2022

9 LPA-11/2022 Manuj Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Oct-2022

10 LPA-240/2022 The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited Vs. Krityanand Ram 18-Oct-2022

11 Cwjc-12810/2018 Ajay Kumar Jha Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 19-Oct-2022

12 Cwjc-17026/2019 Sarita Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2022

13 Cwjc-19550/2019 Ram Bilas Singh, Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2022

14 Cwjc-21768/2019 Md. Iqbal Ansari Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2022

15 Cwjc-19337/2021 Ratan Choudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2022

16 Cwjc-11869/2022 Gareebnath Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2022

17 Lpa-2117/2015 Rajgiri Singh And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 29-Oct-2022

18 Lpa-392/2022 Pratima Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Nov-2022

19 Lpa-398/2022 Sukhan Dusadh @ Sukhan Paswan Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Nov-2022

20 Lpa-533/2022 Rajesh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Nov-2022

21 Lpa-535/2022 Rajesh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Nov-2022

22 Cwjc-15930/2019 Ramdaresh Ray Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Nov-2022

23 Cwjc-4215/2021 Pradeep Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Nov-2022

24 Cwjc-3461/2022 Bhola Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Nov-2022

25 Cwjc-5878/2022 Dipu Kumar Pandit Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Nov-2022

26 Lpa-1702/2019 Uma Shankar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Nov-2022

27 Lpa-1/2020 Mahanth Bhubneshwar Bhagat @ Mahanth Bhuneshwar Bhagat Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Nov-2022

28 Lpa-135/2020 Rambabu Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Nov-2022

29 Lpa-129/2021 Kumar Gaurav Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Nov-2022

30 Lpa-503/2021 Ajay Kumar Jha @ Ajay Jha Vs. The Union Of India, Through The General Manager 07-Nov-2022

31 Lpa-582/2021 Bijendra Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Nov-2022

32 Cwjc-1902/2020 Gulam Mustafa Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Nov-2022

33 Cwjc-2596/2020 Nita Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Nov-2022

34 Lpa-700/2018 Bihar Rajya Vidtyut Parishad Filed Kamgar Union Through Its General Secretary, Amrendra Prasad Mish Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal And Ors 10-Nov-2022

35 Lpa-310/2019 M/s Rajkishore Saw Mill,Labhra-Panchanpur P.S. Tekari, District-Gaya a Proprietorship Firm Through Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 10-Nov-2022

36 Lpa-469/2019 Ratni Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-Nov-2022

37 Lpa-1073/2019 Vishwanath Prasad Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-Nov-2022

38 Lpa-500/2021 Banaras Singh Vs. The Chairman, Punjab National Bank 10-Nov-2022

39 Lpa-382/2022 Naresh Chaudhary Vs. The Union Of India 10-Nov-2022

40 Cwjc-2204/2020 Nibha Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

41 Cwjc-3362/2020 Mahanand Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

42 Cwjc-15027/2021 Mithilesh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

43 Cwjc-7159/2022 Gyanti Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

44 Cwjc-8483/2022 Sarita Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

45 Cwjc-13086/2022 Ajit Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

46 Cwjc-15016/2022 Upendra Prasad Poddar @ Upendra Poddar Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Nov-2022

47 Lpa-1534/2018 The Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Braj Nandan Singh 14-Nov-2022

48 Lpa-962/2019 National Council For Teachers Education (Ncte) Vs. Nalanda Mahila Shikshak Preashikshan 14-Nov-2022

49 Lpa-184/2020 The Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Braj Nandan Singh 14-Nov-2022

50 Lpa-128/2021 The State Of Bihar Vs. Nag Narain Rai 14-Nov-2022

51 Lpa-6/2022 Ram Naresh Choudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar 14-Nov-2022

52 Lpa-82/2022 Mahendra Rishideo Vs. The Union Of India 14-Nov-2022

53 Lpa-304/2022 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. The State Of Bihar 14-Nov-2022

54 Lpa-385/2022 The State Of Bihar Vs. Kusum Kunwar 14-Nov-2022

55 Lpa-1313/2013 Chandradeep Rai And Ors Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 15-Nov-2022

56 Lpa-204/2019 M/S  Gandak Area Development Vs. Central Board Of Trustees, Epf Through The Assistant Provident Fund 15-Nov-2022

57 Lpa-1558/2019 Srikant Singh, Vs. The Patna Municipal Corporation, 15-Nov-2022

58 Lpa-179/2022 Vinod Kumar Suman, Vs. Md. Faisal Ahmad, 15-Nov-2022

59 Cwjc-19067/2018 Surendra Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 16-Nov-2022

60 Cwjc-660/2022 Sikandar Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Nov-2022

61 Cwjc-4667/2022 Abhishek Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Nov-2022

62 Cwjc-9342/2022 Pushpa Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Nov-2022

63 Ma-1046/2018 Abhishek Anand Vs. Rani Kumari 17-Nov-2022

64 Ma-949/2019 Kundan Kumari Vs. Vinod Kumar 17-Nov-2022

65 Cwjc-5647/2022 Rameshwar Prasad Mahto @ Ramesvar Mahato Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Nov-2022

66 Cwjc-5809/2022 Sayeedi Khatun Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Nov-2022

67 Cwjc-8160/2022 Kenar Paharpur Pacs Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Nov-2022

68 Cwjc-8454/2022 Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Nov-2022

69 Cwjc-8612/2022 Bharat Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Nov-2022

70 Cwjc-8793/2022 Ramadhar Prasad Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Nov-2022

71 Lpa-1130/2019 The Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Saraswati Roy 21-Nov-2022

72 Cwjc-2081/2021 Law Kumar Mishra, Vs. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, 21-Nov-2022

73 Cwjc-21335/2021 Surendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Nov-2022

74 Cwjc-20081/2018 Manoj Kumar Ranjan Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 23-Nov-2022

75 Cwjc-23667/2018 Sarbesh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 23-Nov-2022

76 Cwjc-5503/2019 Indresh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 23-Nov-2022

77 Cwjc-16045/2019 Sulekha Ranjan Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Nov-2022

78 Cwjc-20570/2019 Manjurul Hassan Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Nov-2022

79 Cwjc-3420/2020 Kamleshwari Das Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Nov-2022

80 Cwjc-3514/2020 Anil Sahu Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Nov-2022

81 Cwjc-3555/2020 Upendra Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Nov-2022

82 Cwjc-4139/2020 Ranjeet Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Nov-2022

83 Cwjc-4437/2020 Ram Bhajan Paswan, Vs. The State Of Bihar, 23-Nov-2022

84 Cwjc-7716/2022 Lakshmi Sah, Vs. The State Of Bihar, 23-Nov-2022

85 Cwjc-10381/2017 Ram Nath Choudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 24-Nov-2022

86 Cwjc-15827/2017 Yamuna Manjhi Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 24-Nov-2022

87 Cwjc-18966/2017 Mahadeo Chaudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 24-Nov-2022

88 Cwjc-400/2019 Rekha Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 24-Nov-2022

89 Cwjc-175/2020 Arshad Hussain Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Nov-2022

90 Cwjc-4678/2020 Madan Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Nov-2022

91 Cwjc-4920/2020 Santosh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Nov-2022

92 Cwjc-5337/2020 Ramesh Paswan Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Nov-2022

93 Cwjc-10757/2020 Nisar Ahmad Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Nov-2022

94 Lpa-216/2022 Managing Committee Of Madarsa Madarstul Banat Azizul Uloom Vs. The State Of Bihar 28-Nov-2022

95 Lpa-267/2019 Sanjay Kumar Nirala And Ors Vs. Rita Patel And Ors 29-Nov-2022

96 Lpa-1159/2019 Sharda Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Nov-2022

97 Lpa-1659/2019 Ram Vinoy Singh @ Ram Vinay Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India 29-Nov-2022

98 Lpa-25/2022 Sujit Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Nov-2022

99 Cwjc-5593/2021 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India 30-Nov-2022

100 Cwjc-1414/2022 Baikunth Prasad Vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. 30-Nov-2022

101 Lpa-1150/2019 Nasir Gani Khan, Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Dec-2022

102 Lpa-1213/2019 Ajay Nath Shukla Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Dec-2022

103 Lpa-1672/2019 The Patna Municipal Corporation Through The Municipal Commissioner Vs. Binod Kumar 01-Dec-2022

104 Lpa-1677/2019 Bimlesh Kumar, Vs. The Bihar State Housing Board 01-Dec-2022

105 Cwjc-11977/2016 Kamini Ranjan Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 01-Dec-2022

106 Cwjc-21293/2021 M/s Ekta Enterprises Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Dec-2022

107 Cwjc-13069/2022 Datacon Technologies Pvt Ltd. Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Dec-2022

108 Cwjc-13184/2022 Karnataka State Elctronics Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. The State Of Bihar, 01-Dec-2022

109 Cwjc-8108/2017 Abdul Hamid Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors 02-Dec-2022

110 Cwjc-19301/2017 Navin Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 02-Dec-2022

111 Cwjc-19043/2018 Raju Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 02-Dec-2022

112 Cwjc-7076/2019 Baby Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Dec-2022

113 Cwjc-7779/2019 Ram Chandra Baitha Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Dec-2022

114 Cwjc-11838/2019 Sunil Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Dec-2022

115 Cwjc-11984/2019 Lalit Narayan Chaudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Dec-2022

116 Cwjc-12220/2019 Kailash Prasad Yadav @ Kailash Prasad Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Dec-2022

117 Lpa-1372/2019 Syed Irfan Ashraf Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Dec-2022

118 Lpa-156/2021 The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Vs. Suminta Devi 05-Dec-2022

119 Lpa-478/2021 Satish Kumar Ray Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Dec-2022

120 Lpa-606/2021 The Union Of India Vs. Ram Naresh Rai 05-Dec-2022

121 Cwjc-8695/2019 Lata Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Dec-2022

122 Cwjc-22238/2019 Ramjatan Paswan Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Dec-2022

123 Cwjc-1297/2020 Urmila Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Dec-2022

124 Cwjc-3338/2020 Priyanka Kumari, Vs. The State Of Bihar. 05-Dec-2022

125 Lpa-659/2021 Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Dec-2022

126 Lpa-237/2022 The Joint Secretary, Law Department Vs. Jai Prakash Mishra 06-Dec-2022

127 Lpa-401/2022 Ram Sumiran Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Dec-2022

128 Cwjc-4470/2020 Sarjan Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Dec-2022

129 Lpa-48/2020 Munna Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Dec-2022

130 Lpa-103/2022 Surinder Prasad Vs. The Union Of India 07-Dec-2022

131 Cwjc-2869/2021 The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Vs. Jagan Nath Das 08-Dec-2022

132 Cwjc-15937/2021 Neha Kumari Vs. The General Manager I/C (Rs), 08-Dec-2022

133 Cwjc-12351/2022 Anmol Kumar Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited 08-Dec-2022

134 Lpa-958/2016 The Managing Director, Bihar State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And Anr Vs. The Halimpur Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. And Ors 13-Dec-2022

135 Cwjc-18155/2018 Arun Kumar Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 13-Dec-2022

136 Cwjc-20416/2018 Ravindra Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 13-Dec-2022

137 Cwjc-13967/2019 Mahaboudh Jan Swasthaya Evem Sarvangin Vikas Kendra, Vs. The State Of Bihar 14-Dec-2022

138 Cwjc-19586/2021 Vikash Chandra @ Guddu Baba Vs. The State Of Bihar 14-Dec-2022

139 Lpa-1641/2019 Satya Narain Rai Vs. The Bihar State Financial Corporation 15-Dec-2022

140 Cwjc-18221/2016 Devendra Harijan Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 15-Dec-2022

141 Cwjc-2654/2017 Mohammad Shahnawaj Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 15-Dec-2022

142 Cwjc-22420/2018 Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 15-Dec-2022

143 Lpa-46/2020 Sk. Manjur @ Sk. Manzur Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Dec-2022

144 Cwjc-11600/2022 Nagendra Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Dec-2022

145 Lpa-1/2022 Raj Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Dec-2022

146 Lpa-13/2022 The State Of Bihar Vs. Ram Babu Azad 20-Dec-2022

147 Lpa-39/2022 Ravi Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Dec-2022

148 Cwjc-15275/2018 Punam Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 20-Dec-2022

149 Cwjc-19864/2018 Amarjit Singh And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 20-Dec-2022

150 Cwjc-22397/2018 Subhash Ram@Subhash Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 20-Dec-2022

151 Cwjc-22486/2018 Sunil Kumar Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 20-Dec-2022

152 Cwjc-25057/2018 Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 20-Dec-2022

153 Cwjc-6003/2019 Rupak Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Dec-2022

154 Cwjc-7676/2019 Mukesh Kumar Pandit Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Dec-2022

155 Cwjc-9065/2019 Chandra Nath Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Dec-2022

156 Cwjc-9610/2019 Munni Kumari, Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Dec-2022

157 LPA-1471/2019 Lalita Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Dec-2022

158 C. Rev.-414/2019 Mir. Mohammad Islam, Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Dec-2022

159 CWJC-24779/2018 Pawan Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Dec-2022

160 LPA-914/2019 Birendra Pandey Vs. The High Court Of Judicature At Patna 25-Jan-2023

161 LPA-501/2021 Islam Mian @ Islam Khalifa Vs. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, 25-Jan-2023

162 LPA-1719/2018 The High Court Of Judicature At Patna High Court The Registrar General And Ors Vs. Birendra Pandey 22-Feb-2023

163 Cr.Misc.-14294/2022 Birendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Superintendent Of Police, Patna. 24-Feb-2023

164 Cr.Misc.-49085/2021 Yogesh Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Mar-2023

165 Cr.Misc.-47666/2022 Madhulika Rani Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Mar-2023

166 Cr. App (Sj)-3187/2022 Om Prakash Singh @ Sonu Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Apr-2023

167 Cr. App (Sj)-3626/2022 Pramod Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Apr-2023

168 Cr.Misc.-66729/2022 Mukesh Kumar Ray Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-May-2023

169 Cr.Misc.-71689/2021 Nirbhay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-May-2023

170 Cr.Misc.-1209/2023 Manoj Mandal Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-May-2023

171 Cr. App (Db)-487/2016 Sanoj Thakur Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Jun-2023

172 Cr. App (Db)-148/2021 Mirtunjay Kumar @ Mritunjay Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Jun-2023

173 Cr. App (Db)-159/2021 Rohit Kumar @ Vishwajeet Bhardwaz Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Jun-2023

174 Cr. App (Db)-48/2023 Shabnam Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Jun-2023

175 Cr. App (Db)-237/2023 Rijh Kant Mishra Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Jun-2023

176 Cr. App (Db)-1431/2018 Krishna Ram @ Kishana Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Jun-2023

177 Cr. App (Db)-1440/2018 Gopi Lal Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Jun-2023

178 Cr. App (Db)-806/2015 Afshan Ajeem @ Afshan Azeem @ Afsa Azim @ Anjum Vs. The State Of Bihar 26-Jun-2023

179 Cr. App (Db)-973/2015 Suraj Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 26-Jun-2023

180 Cr. App (Db)-203/2021 Litu Das Vs. The Union Of India Through Intelligence Officer D.R.I. Regional Unit, Patna 27-Jun-2023

181 Cr. App (Db)-13/2020 Ii Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 04-Jul-2023

182 Cr. App (Db)-101/2020 Ii Raktu Das Vs. The State Of Bihar 04-Jul-2023

183 Cr. App (Db)-85/2020 Ii Raju Kumar @ Raju Das Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Jul-2023

184 Cr. App (Db)-403/2021 Prakash Chaudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Jul-2023

185 Cr. App (Db)-6/2021 Rubul Hussain @ Rubul Hasan Vs. The State Of Bihar 12-Jul-2023

186 Cr. App (Db)-45/2023 Chitrangat Tiwari @ Chitragat Tiwari Vs. The State Of Bihar 12-Jul-2023

187 Cr. App (Db)-317/2020 Jankawa Devi @ Janki Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 13-Jul-2023

188 Cr. App (Db)-1276/2018 Sarvesh Kumar And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar 14-Jul-2023

189 Cr. App (Db)-206/2021 Miraj Mian Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Jul-2023

190 Cr. App (Db)-244/2021 Manjar Alam Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Jul-2023

191 Cr. App (Db)-2/2021 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Jul-2023

192 Cr. App (Db)-109/2021 Ratan Mehta Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Jul-2023

193 Cr. App (Db)-658/2017 Md. Tauhid Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Jul-2023

194 Cr. App (Db)-208/2019 Rajendra Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Jul-2023

195 Cr. App (Db)-237/2014 Babulal Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Jul-2023

196 Cr. App (Db)-515/2014 Rizwan Mian Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Jul-2023

197 Cr. App (Db)-217/2020 Sajjal Das @ Sajal Das Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Jul-2023

198 Cr. App (Db)-257/2017 Ram Kumar Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Jul-2023

199 Cr. App (Db)-362/2017 Birendra Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Jul-2023

200 Cr. App (Db)-306/2018 Md. Shamim @ Chhotu Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Jul-2023

201 Cr. App (Db)-262/2021 Abhishek Kumar @ Chandan Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Jul-2023

202 Cr. App (Db)-284/2021 Ritesh Ranjan @ Banti Kumar @ Mantu Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Jul-2023

203 Cr. App (Db)-445/2021 Anarjeet Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 25-Jul-2023

204 Cr. App (Db)-358/2020 Ravikant Dewedi Vs. The State Of Bihar 26-Jul-2023

205 Cr. App (Db)-35/2022 Munna Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 26-Jul-2023

206 Cr. App (Db)-298/2021 Niraj Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 27-Jul-2023

207 Cr. App (Db)-430/2022 Shakti Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 27-Jul-2023

208 Cr. App (Db)-497/2022 Arvind Kumar Rai Vs. The State Of Bihar 28-Jul-2023

209 Cr. App (Db)-532/2022 Md. Abdul Kais @ Abdul Kais Vs. The Union Of India Through Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau 31-Jul-2023

210 Cr. App (Db)-214/2021 Chhatri Yadav @ Chhatri Prasad Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Aug-2023

211 Cr. App (Db)-240/2021 Chhatish Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Aug-2023

212 Cr. App (Db)-276/2021 Dilip Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Aug-2023

213 Cr. App (Db)-328/2021 Suren Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 01-Aug-2023

214 Cr. App (Db)-534/2022 Sikindar Prasad Yadav @ Sikandar Prasad Yadav Vs. The Union Of India Through Binod Kumar Das, Inspector, Land Customs Station, Raxaul 01-Aug-2023

215 Cr. App (Db)-222/2017 Anita Devi And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Aug-2023

216 Cr. App (Db)-273/2017 Ram Kalyan Paswan Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Aug-2023

217 Cr. App (Db)-840/2022 Gopi Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 03-Aug-2023

218 Cr. App (Db)-413/2018 Rustam Mian Vs. The State Of Bihar 04-Aug-2023

219 Cr. App (Db)-1043/2018 Farid Khan Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Aug-2023

220 Cr. App (Db)-310/2017 Kari Paswan Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Aug-2023

221 Cr. App (Db)-269/2020 Prince Khattik Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Aug-2023

222 Cr. App (Db)-282/2020 Sawan Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Aug-2023

223 Cr. App (Db)-362/2020 Akash Mahto Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Aug-2023

224 Cr. App (Db)-369/2020 Krishna Mahaseth Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Aug-2023

225 Cr. App (Db)-583/2022 Lal Babu Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Aug-2023

226 Cr. App (Db)-590/2022 Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Aug-2023

227 Cr. App (Db)-631/2022 Kalyan Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 16-Aug-2023

228 Cr. App (Db)-274/2021 Munna Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Aug-2023

229 Cr. App (Db)-326/2021 Satyendra Bind Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Aug-2023

230 Cr. App (Db)-330/2021 Nassem Sheikh Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Aug-2023

231 Cr. App (Db)-264/2022 Pintoo Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Aug-2023

232 Cwjc-21202/2021 Ghuran Paswan Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

233 Cwjc-214/2022 Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

234 Cwjc-1265/2022 Radha Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

235 Cwjc-1708/2022 Pramod Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

236 Cwjc-1852/2022 Mostt. Saraswati Kuer @ Saraswati Devi Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

237 Cwjc-1898/2022 Rajendra Prasad Gupta @ Rajendra Prasad Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

238 Cwjc-3806/2022 Ramesh Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Aug-2023

239 Cr. App (Db)-1211/2017 Dhanraj Sharma Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Aug-2023

240 Cr. App (Db)-1223/2017 Murli Manohar Sharma Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Aug-2023

241 Cr. App (Db)-296/2021 Ramjeet Yadav @ Ranjit Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 21-Aug-2023

242 Cr. App (Db)-306/2021 Mukesh Das Vs. The State Of Bihar 22-Aug-2023

243 Cr. App (Db)-1375/2018 Ajay Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors 23-Aug-2023

244 Cr. App (Db)-332/2021 Dilip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 23-Aug-2023

245 Cr. App (Db)-1155/2019 Manoj Chaudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Aug-2023

246 Cr. App (Db)-544/2022 Anil Yadav Vs. The Union Of India Through Director Of Revenue Intelligence, Muzaffarpur. 24-Aug-2023

247 Cr. App (Db)-326/2023 Hari Om Giri @ Hari Om Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Aug-2023

248 Cr. App (Db)-122/2020 Abhineshwar Kumar Pandey @ Nanhe Pandey Vs. The State Of Bihar 25-Aug-2023

249 Cr. App (Db)-363/2021 Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 28-Aug-2023

250 D. Ref.-1/2023 The State Of Bihar Vs. Shahid 28-Aug-2023

251 Cr. App (Db)-108/2019 Ramesh Pd. Singh @ Ramesh Singh And Anr. Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

252 Cr. App (Db)-130/2019 Amarnath Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

253 Cr. App (Db)-191/2019 Bhushn Singh @ Bhushan Singh And Anr. Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

254 Cr. App (Db)-238/2019 Mukesh Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

255 Cr. App (Db)-254/2019 Karmu Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

256 Cr. App (Db)-177/2020 Chandan Rai Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

257 Cr. App (Db)-604/2023 Shahid Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Aug-2023

258 Cr. App (Db)-100/2023 Lakhan Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 30-Aug-2023

259 Cr. App (Db)-394/2021 Rahul Tiwari @ Rahul Kumar Tiwari Vs. The State Of Bihar 31-Aug-2023

260 Cr. App (Db)-349/2020 Ramanand Chauhan @ Ramanand Noniya Vs. The State Of Bihar 04-Sep-2023

261 Cr. App (Db)-475/2021 Krishna Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 04-Sep-2023

262 Cr. App (Db)-579/2015 Md. Sikander And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Sep-2023

263 Cr. App (Db)-193/2021 Kumod Mandal Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Sep-2023

264 Cr. App (Db)-1116/2019 Sunil Kumar Puspam @ Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Sep-2023

265 Cr. App (Db)-476/2021 Manish Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Sep-2023

266 Cr. App (Db)-455/2016 Deoki Yadav And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Sep-2023

267 Cr. App (Db)-506/2016 Sikko Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Sep-2023

268 Cr. App (Db)-372/2020 Phulan Das Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Sep-2023

269 Cr. App (Db)-956/2018 Rabindra Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Sep-2023

270 Cr. App (Db)-968/2018 Yugul Thakur @ Kashi Nath Thakur Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Sep-2023

271 Cr. App (Db)-990/2018 Sunil Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Sep-2023

272 Cr. App (Db)-1051/2018 Dinesh Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Sep-2023

273 Cr. App (Db)-1023/2018 Kamaljit Mohanty @ Kamaljeet Mohanti Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Sep-2023

274 Cr. App (Db)-426/2021 Md. Mintu Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Sep-2023

275 Cr. App (Db)-745/2021 Bipin Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Sep-2023

276 Cr. App (Db)-924/2023 Santosh Kumar Jena @ Santosh Kumar Jaina Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Sep-2023

277 Cr. App (Db)-808/2021 Mange Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Sep-2023

278 Cr. App (Db)-197/2023 Ramchandra Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 20-Sep-2023

279 Cr. App (Db)-391/2018 Pawan Sharma And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar 22-Sep-2023

280 Cr. App (Db)-433/2018 Mithun Sharma Vs. The State Of Bihar 22-Sep-2023

281 Cr. App (Db)-575/2021 Arvind Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 25-Sep-2023

282 Cr. App (Db)-128/2018 Mantu Mandal Vs. The State Of Bihar 26-Sep-2023

283 Cr. App (Db)-1122/2018 Shankar Mandal Vs. The State Of Bihar 26-Sep-2023

284 Cr. App (Db)-114/2021 Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh Vs. The National Investigation Agency C.G.O. Comlex, Lodi Road, New Delhi Through Its Director General 03-Oct-2023

285 Cr. App (Db)-507/2021 Vikash Kumar Sah @ Vikesh Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 03-Oct-2023

286 Cr. App (Db)-512/2021 Pankaj Kumar Khurana Vs. The State Of Bihar 04-Oct-2023

287 Cr. App (Db)-416/2022 Bishal Sharma @ Vishal Sharma Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Oct-2023

288 Cr. App (Db)-696/2021 Sanjeev Kumar @ Bitthu @ Bittu Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Oct-2023

289 Cr. App (Db)-763/2021 Santosh Sahani @ Bantha Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Oct-2023

290 Cwjc-4572/1986 Asharfi Tiwary Vs. The Joint Director Of Consolid 06-Oct-2023

291 Cwjc-4631/1986 Sita Ram Thakur Vs. The Joint Director Of Consolid 06-Oct-2023

292 Cr. App (Db)-1474/2019 Osihar Sahani @ Osiar Sahani Vs. The Union Of India Through Bikash Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna 07-Oct-2023

293 Cr. App (Db)-419/2020 Bhuali Rai Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Oct-2023

294 Cr. App (Db)-455/2020 Bheem Choudhary Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Oct-2023

295 Cr. App (Db)-530/2021 Md. Banti @ Afroj Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Oct-2023

296 Cr. App (Db)-685/2023 Munna Kumar @ Munna Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 09-Oct-2023

297 Cr. App (Db)-649/2021 Golu Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-Oct-2023

298 Cr. App (Db)-675/2021 Munna Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-Oct-2023

299 Cr. App (Db)-638/2021 Anil Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Oct-2023

300 Cr. App (Db)-690/2021 Suraj Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 11-Oct-2023

301 Cr. WJC-945/2023 Abhishek Kashyap Vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Bihar At Patna 11-Oct-2023

302 Cr. App (Db)-789/2021 Anil Mahto @ Anil Nonia Vs. The State Of Bihar 12-Oct-2023

303 Cr. App (Db)-31/2022 Jitu Sao Vs. The State Of Bihar 12-Oct-2023

304 Cr. App (Db)-47/2022 Vikash Kumar Mochi Vs. The State Of Bihar 12-Oct-2023

305 Cr. App (Db)-452/2020 Laxman Chaudhari Vs. The State Of Bihar 13-Oct-2023

306 Cr. App (Db)-527/2018 Prem Mukhiya Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Oct-2023

307 Cr. App (Db)-356/2021 Ritik Kumar @ Nilu Sahani Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Oct-2023

308 Cr. App (Db)-721/2021 Pawan Kumar @ Neelu Kumar @ Neelu Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Oct-2023

309 Cr. App (Db)-601/2010 Manoj Bin And Ors Vs. State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2023

310 Cr. App (Db)-450/2016 Shri Kishun Bin Vs. The State Of Bihar 19-Oct-2023

311 Cr. Wjc-1244/2023 Tuntun Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 30-Oct-2023

312 Cr. App (Db)-528/2017 Giri Shankar Bind Vs. The State Of Bihar 31-Oct-2023

313 Cr. App (Db)-349/2017 Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Nov-2023

314 Cr. App (Db)-406/2021 Saddam Hussain @ Daddam Hussain Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Nov-2023

315 Cr. App (Db)-515/2021 Farman Khan Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Nov-2023

316 Cr. App (Db)-587/2021 Radheshyam Sah @ Radhe Shyam Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Nov-2023

317 C. Rev.-142/2017 Bihar State Housing Board, Through It Managing Director And Anr Vs. Kumar Prashant And Anr 08-Nov-2023

318 Cr. App (Db)-648/2019 Dasrath Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-Nov-2023

319 Cr. App (Db)-521/2021 Sonelal Kewat @ Sonu Vs. The State Of Bihar 10-Nov-2023

320 Cr. App (Db)-304/2021 Sukumar Jana Vs. The State Of Bihar 06-Dec-2023

321 Cr. App (Db)-600/2021 Anzar Ansari @ Md. Anzar Hussain Vs. The State Of Bihar 14-Dec-2023

322 SA-446/1986 Fulanti Devi Vs. Shrimati Jagmani Devi 19-Jan-2024

323 C.R.-2383/2007 Renu Sinha Vs. Bajrangi Ram @ Bajo Ram And Ors 31-Jan-2024

324 MA-448/2015 Saroj Singh And Ors Vs. Saraswati Devi And Anr 26-Feb-2024

325 MA-317/2014 Savitri Devi Vs. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 29-Feb-2024

326 MA-190/2014 Sabitry Devi Vs. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, E.c. Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali 04-Mar-2024

327 C.R.-85/2014 Satyendra Singh Vs. Smt. Rashmi Mehra 07-Mar-2024

328 C.R.-45/2013 Kaushal Kumar Singh Vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board And Ors. 12-Mar-2024

329 FA-6/2015 The State Of Bihar Vs. Md. Ahsanul Hoda @ Md Ashanul Hoda 10-Apr-2024

330 MA-82/2014 Poonam Kumari Vs. Estate Of Deceased Mahima Sharan Singh And Anr. 10-Apr-2024

331 MA-176/2019 Munari Devi Vs. Union Of India 24-Apr-2024

332 FA-92/2006 Manoj Kumar Vs. Special Officer 02-May-2024

333 FA-319/1989 State Bank Of India Vs. Sri Shatrughna Prasad Srivastava 08-May-2024

334 FA-522/1990 Aditya Singh Vs. Kesar Singh 08-May-2024

335 MA-770/2013 Kavita Devi Vs. The Union Of India, Through The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur 09-May-2024

336 MA-1065/2016 Karu Singh Vs. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 09-May-2024

337 FA-52/1986 Bhagwati Saran Vs. Sita Ram 20-Jun-2024

338 FA-102/1989 The State Of Bihar Vs. Parmanand Rai 20-Jun-2024

339 MA-44/2015 The State Of Bihar Through The Collector, Darbhanga Vs. Sita Devi And Ors 20-Jun-2024

340 Cr. App (Sj)-643/2023 Arun Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 29-Jul-2024

341 Cr. App (Sj)-3941/2018 Ii Durag Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State Of Bihar And Anr 05-Aug-2024

342 C.R.-90/2014 Sunil Kumar Vs. Anjum Shireen 03-Sep-2024

343 SA-18/1992 Rameshwar Mahto, Vs. Giyani Mahton, 03-Sep-2024

344 FA-502/1989 Daya Shankar Prasad Thakur, Vs. The State Of Bihar, 08-Oct-2024

345 MA-309/2012 Ramawtar Chaudhary Vs. Sushil Chandra Mishra 08-Oct-2024

346 Cr. App (Db)-1216/2024 Ram Jatan Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar 17-Dec-2024

347 Cr. App (Db)-541/2023 Banarasi Sah Vs. The State Of Bihar 18-Dec-2024

348 Cr. App (Db)-376/2015 Ajay Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 03-Jan-2025

349 Lpa-262/2022 Deepak Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Jan-2025

350 Cr. App (Db)-476/2019 Ramesh Ram Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Jan-2025

351 Cr. App (Db)-119/2021 Chandani Kumari Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Jan-2025

352 Cr. App (Db)-653/2023 Ravindra Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Jan-2025

353 Cr. App (Db)-816/2023 Ruksad @ Rukshad Vs. The State Of Bihar 07-Jan-2025

354 C.R.-117/2012 Indra Pratap Singh @ Lalji Babu Vs. Smt. Rupa Sinha 07-Jan-2025

355 E.P.-5/2020 Gajanand Shahi Vs. Sudarshan Kumar 07-Jan-2025

356 Cr. App (Db)-823/2019 Niraj Pandey Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Jan-2025

357 Cr. App (Db)-1096/2024 Sanni Kumar @ Sanny Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 08-Jan-2025

358 Cr. App (Db)-870/2023 Abhishek Kumar @ Nanhaka Vs. The State Of Bihar 22-Jan-2025

359 Cr. App (Sj)-132/2006 Ram Bilash Singh Vs. State Of Bihar 28-Jan-2025

360 Cr. App (Sj)-102/2006 Keshwar Singh And Ors Vs. State Of Bihar 06-Feb-2025

361 Cr. App (Sj)-670/2019 Brahamdeo Mandal And Ors Vs. The State Of Bihar 24-Apr-2025

362 MA-131/2014 Om Prakash Saha Vs. Ambika Prasad Saha 17-Jun-2025

363 Cr. App (Sj)-3649/2021 Pramod Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 02-Jul-2025

364 Cr. App (Sj)-168/2019 Ramashray Prasad @ Ramashray Prasad Yadav Vs. The State Of Bihar Through Superintendent , Vigilance , Patna 08-Jul-2025

365 Cr. App (Sj)-151/2019 Pramod Kumar Singh And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar And Anr 10-Jul-2025

366 Cr. App (Sj)-672/2019 Bihari @ Shatrughan And Anr Vs. The State Of Bihar 22-Jul-2025

367 Cr. App (Sj)-5611/2019 Vinod Mehta Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Aug-2025

368 Cr. App (Sj)-451/2020 Guddu Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar 05-Aug-2025

369 Cr. App (Sj)-550/2020 Tileshwar Mahto Vs. The State Of Bihar 05

370 FA-96/1990 Iswar Chander Prasad Vs. Ram Prasad Sah 21-Jan-2026

Justice Pandey retired on February 28, 2026. There was a Full Court Farewell Reference on February 27, 2026, in the Centenary Hall of the High Court in the honour of Justice Pandey, upon hiss superannuation. The proceedings are avaialble here. Prior to joining as judge in October 2021, he was Registrar General of the High Court. He had joind as judge along with Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar. Both Pandey and Panwar were elevated to high judiciary from subordinate judiciary quota of the state. Chief Justice had Sanjay Karol administered oath to both. After his appointment as judge he used sit as part of a Division Bench headed by Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh. 

Justice Pandey delivered his first 14-page long judgement dated December 14, 2021 in Rajiv Kumar Agrawal & Anr. vs. 1. Jitendra Narayan Agrawal & Ors. (2021) in a case from Mohalla Mungeriganj, Begusarai, wherein he set aside    the order dated December 11, 2019, passed by the Sub Judge-I, Begusarai in Title Suit No.188 of 1997 (Reg.No.71 of 2015), whereby the Sub Judge had excluded the Schedule-III properties from the above-mentioned title partition suit.  

The facts of the case was that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a Title Suit in 1997 seeking partition of the joint family properties set forth in Schedules-II, III, and IV appended in the plaint, and for carving out a separate takhta to the extent of 1/6th share in Schedule-II properties, 25% share in Schedule-III and 1/3rd share in Schedule-IV properties in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs by appointing a survey knowing pleader commissioner. Schedule-III property was exclusive property of Late Bishundev Narain Agrawal, whose lineal descendants were plaintiffs and the defendants. Late Bishundev Narain Agrawal had two sons, namely, Late Rabindra Narayan Agrawal and Late Arbind Kumar Agrawal and a daughter Indira Rani. Rabindra Narayan Agrawal had one son, namely, Jitendra Narayan Agrawal (respondent no.1) and two daughters, namely, Divya Rani and Menakshi. The other branch Arbind Kumar Agrawal was survived by the plaintiff his brother Dr. Sanjeev Agrawal and sister Mridula Rani. It was the case of the petitioners that the partition shown with respect to the title Suit No. 60 of 1966 amongst the family members was only concerned with the shops and houses made for specific purposes. The joint family agriculture land and other properties acquired in the name of individuals of the family and forming nucleus were yet to be partitioned. 

It was also the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners is that any private partition shown between Bishundev Narain Agrawal and his two sons was fictitious in nature and collusively created for the purpose of Ceiling income Tax or Wealth & estate duty too. Late Bishundev Narain Agrawal during his lifetime with the help of joint family business and ancestral properties added considerable movable and immovable properties and he created a Will cum Trust for some of the joint family properties. He appointed father of respondent no.1, namely, Late Rabindra Narayan Agrawal and father of petitioner no.1 Late Arbind Kumar Agrawal, executors of the Will with solemn responsibilities to hand over certain amounts indicated in the Will to different beneficiaries and all other properties to be passed on amongst members of the joint family as joint family properties. One of the stipulations in the Will/Trust was that the Trust cum Will will not be determined for a period of 20 years from the death of the testator. 

Further case of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 173 of 2012, wherein the relief sought for is that defendant no.1 Late Rabindra Narayan Agrawal had illegally determined the Will/Trust as an executor which power was exercised illegally and unlawfully as the executor has no authority to determine the Will and further relief is for rendition of accounts during the period where the executor had administered the property having large incomes from rental and agriculture. It was pertinent to mention that the Will/Trust deed contain an arbitral clause.

By the impugned order dated December 11, 2019, whereby the court below excluded Schedule-III properties from the Title Suit No. 188 of 1997. The trial court based his order on two grounds. The first ground was that on earlier occasion his predecessor passed an order dated May 21, 1999, whereby the predecessor had removed schedule-III properties from this Title Suit No. 188 of 1997. 

The paragraph 4 of the impugned order is as follows:- “On 21/05/99 by an unassailed order that
has now attained finality the admittedly exclusive properties of late Bishundev Narain Agrawal were ordered to be removed from this partition suit 188/97. This order has remained unassailed and attained finality.” From perusal of the order, it was evident that the properties in Schedule-III were not excluded. Vide that order, two petitions dated July 24, 1998; one filed on behalf of respondent no.4 and the second filed on behalf of respondent no.1 were disposed of. Respondent no.4 as well as respondent no.1 both filed two separate petitions on the same date i.e. July 24, 1998 for the stay of the further proceeding of the Title Suit No. 188 of 1997 under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The court below, after considering the provisions of Section 34 of 1940 Act and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, refused to stay the further proceedings of the case and while refusing the stay, the court below has been pleased to observe as follows:-
“Thus from this stipulation made in the Will aforesaid it is very much evident that the properties described in Schedule-III of the plaint is not a subject-matter of partition through the present litigation. Rather it should be referred to for arbitration. But no one has, up till now, prayed for reference of the dispute to the arbitration. Rather, the present petitions have been filed praying therein to stay the proceeding of the present suit, without making any prayer to refer to matter to arbitration, under provisions contained in section-8 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1996, the further proceeding of the case can not be stayed on the ground that there is an arbitration clause with regard to the some properties in dispute in this case. As such both the petitions under consideration are rejected.”

The said portion of the order dated May 21, 1999 itself shows that since none of the parties made prayer to refer the matter to the arbitration, as such, the learned court below refrained from referring it for the arbitration. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter could not be referred for arbitration, despite the Trust cum Will deed having arbitral clause. The argument of counsel was that for referring the matter to the arbitration, “arbitration agreement” is essential within the meaning of
Sections 2(1) (b) and 2(1) (h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Trust cum Will is neither signed by the trustee nor the beneficiaries. As such, the “arbitration agreement” cannot be said to be existed. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Vimal Kishor Shah and others Vs. Jayesh Dinesh Shah and others (2016) 8 SCC, 788. 

 

In Vimal Kishor Shah (supra), the Court observed as follows:-
“14. The basic question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether a clause in a trust deed, which provides for resolving the disputes arising between the beneficiaries of the Trust through arbitration, can constitute an “arbitration agreement” within the meaning of Sections 2(1)(b) and 2 (1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Act and whether the application filed by the respondents under Section 11 of the Act can be held as maintainable? Sections 2 (1) (b) and 2(1)(h) and Section 7 of the Act are relevant to examine the question involved in the case. 

A reading of the provisions in these sections in juxtaposition goes to show that in order to constitute a valid, binding and enforceable arbitration agreement, the requirements contained in Section 7 is required to be satisfied strictly. These requirements, apart from others, are: (1) there has to be an agreement, (2) it has to be in writing, (3) parties must sign such agreement or in other words, the agreement must bear the signatures of the parties concerned and (4) such agreement must contain an arbitration clause. In other words, four conditions are sine qua non for constituting a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Failure to satisfy any of the four conditions would render the arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable and, in consequence, would result in dismissal of the application filed under Section 11 of the Act at its threshold.” 

Justice Pandey observed: "Considering the law laid down by their Lordships in Vimal Kishor Shah (supra), which is identical to the present case in respect of non-existing of “arbitral agreement”, the matter cannot be referred for arbitration, despite existence of arbitral clause in the Trust cum Will deed and accordingly the properties in Schedule-III should not have been excluded from the suit."

In Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., (2011) 5 SCC 532, the Supreme Court enumerated six types of cases which could not be referred to arbitration as these types of dispute are of the nature of non-arbitrable dispute. Paragraph 36 of the Court's decision reads:-“36. The well-recognised examples of non-arbitrable disputes are: (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and
succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statues where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes.” In Vimal Kishor Shah (supra), 7th category was added. The cases are relating to the trust deed under the Indian Trusts Act 1882 were also included. 

In paragraph no. 54 of Vimal Kishor Shah (supra), the Court observed: “54. We thus add one more category of cases i.e. Category (vii), namely, cases arising out of trust deed and the Trusts Act, 1882, in the list of six categories of cases specified by this Court in para 36 at pp. 546-47 of the decision rendered in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. which as held above cannot be decided by the arbitrator(s).” 

Justice Pandey underlined that "As such, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law on the two counts. First, in absence of “arbitral agreement”, the matter could not be referred to arbitration after removing the properties from Schedule-III in Title Suit No. 188 of 1997. Secondly, the nature of the case has been added as 7th category in Vimal Kishor Shah (supra) and has been declared as non-arbitrable dispute."

He recorded the submission of the counsel for the respondents who submitted that the petitioner no.1 had himself admitted that he had filed a separate suit being Title Suit No. 173 of 2012 in respect of Schedule-III properties and in paragraph no.12 of of his plaint of Title Suit No. 173 of 2012, the plaintiff stated that he was ready to delete the trust property from the suit being Title (Partition) Suit No.188 of 1997. Even if it was true that the petitioner no.1/plaintiff expressed his readiness to delete the Schedule-III properties from Title Suit No. 188 of 1997, it did not mean that it should be deleted for referring it for the arbitration. That might be for consideration in Title Suit No.173 of 2012. He ponited out that "It may be the grievance of the respondents that the properties described in Schedule-III of Title Suit No. 188 of 1997 are directly and substantially involved in Title Suit No. 173 of 2012. In that situation, the court below, after taking the recourse of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may stay the subsequent suit if it is satisfied that the ingredients of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are fulfilled in all respects, but it does not mean that the Schedule-III properties should be removed from Title Suit No. 188 of 1997."

Justice Pandey concluded:"....With these observations, the impugned order dated 11.12.2019 is set aside. Civil Miscellaneous application is allowed. The impugned order itself shows that on earlier occasion this Court has observed for expeditious disposal of the case, accordingly, the court below shall take every endevour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible."

Justice Pandey delivered his last judgement on January 21, 2028.