Patna Court July 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Birendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
P.K. Sarin, J.1. The bail petition of the petitioner has been rejected twice by this Court. However, while rejecting (he second bail petition of the present petitioner on 16.11.1993 in Cr. Misc. No. 11697 of 1993, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to constitute a Medical Board and after taking into consideration the legal evidence as would be forthcoming for determination of the age of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate was directed to pass such order as he may deem fit and proper. This direction was made because it appeared that the point as to age of the petitioner was not at all considered and the petitioner raised the plea that he was a juvenile. It appears that thereafter the learned Magistrate determined the age of the petitioner on the basis of the examination report of the Medical Board and the age of the petitioner was found to be 14 to 16 years. However, he was not released on bail. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner moved a petition for bail (under Secti...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspector of Factories Jamshedpur Cir ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent the case is being disposed of at the time of admission stage itself.2. The petitioner in this writ application is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing iron and steel products, which is being carried on at the petitioners' steel plant at Jamshedpur. It is not disputed the said Steel Plant being a 'factory' within the meaning of the 'Factory Act and the Rules' made thereunder, provisions of the said Act and Rules are applicable to the Factory of the petitioner.3. Section 40B of the Factories Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') requires the petitioner to appoint Safety Officers. The said provision also lays down that the State Government by notification in the official Gazette may direct employment of such number of Safety Officers as may be specified in that notification.4. Rule 62-B of the Bihar Factories Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') provides for qualif...
Manoj Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. This writ appliction is directed challenging the validity of the action of the respondents in rusticating the petitioners from Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri for two academic years asking them to take admission in the second year with 1993 batch in the Sessions of 1994-95.3. The petitioner No. I of the present writ application is pursuing B.Sc. Engineering Course in electronics in the aforesaid Institute and he has passed first year Engineering Examination after which he has been prosecuting study in the Second year course. Similarly the petitioner No, 2 is pursuing B.Sc. Engineering Course in Mining in the said Institute and he has after passing the first year Engineering examination been prosecuting the study in the second year course. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties to this case, it is necessary to state a...
Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
A.K. Ganguly, J. 1. After the writ petition was filed on 11th January, 1994, it came up for admission on 21st January, 1994 and a Division Bench of this Court in the presence of the learned lawyer appearing for the State respondent gave three weeks time to the Government Pleader No. 1 to seek instructions and file counter-affidavit so that the application may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself and directed the parties to maintain status quo as of that date in respect of the disputed land/house in question. 2. Thereafter the matter had been appearing before the Division Bench of the Court on several dates. The mater appeared on 18-2-1994, 25-3-1994, 29-4-1994 and on all those dates time was given to the respondents' Counsel to file the counter affidavit but it was never filed. 3. After re-opening of the Court after summer vacation, the matter was placed before this Division Bench on 24th June, 1994. No affidavit was filed even on that date. As such the Court took an exce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›