Patna Court April 1995 Judgments
Subhash Chandra Sinku Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
S.K. Chattopadhaya, J.1. Heard Mr. Topno, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.2. An interesting question has been poised before this court on behalf of the petitioner as to whether a complaint or FIR could be filed against a public servant without the sanction of the Government when the action of the public servant complained of appears to come within the provisions of Sections 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code').3. In order to appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to give some facts of the case. One Surajdeo Yadav lodged an FIR on 27-2-95 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner, the Range Officer of Chainpur Range along with his rifle party came to the village and began to seize woods from the possession of one Rajendra Yadav, the brother of the informant. The woods were to be used for the house which was under construction. The petitioner and his party began to load the said woods in a truc...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshwar Singh Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
B.L. Yadav, A.C.J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated May 2, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing in part C. W.J.C. No. 1844 of 1989 (R). The learned Single Judge recorded finding substantially in favour of the petitioner/appellant, a bus conductor but instead of directingreinstatement directed the petitioner to be entitled to 3.33 years wages last drawn by him. 2. The relief claimed in the present Letters Patent Appeal is that it may be allowed and the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge be modified to the extent that the petitioner/appellant may be reinstated with the entire back wages. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner/appellant was appointed by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Respondent No. 1) as a bus conductor. He was appointed on substantive vacancy, whereas according to the respondents he was appointed as a casual employee. The appellant was, however, ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. K.B. Sarkar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
P.K. Deb, J.1. The Jail authority has challenged the quantum and calculation of compensation allowed in favour of the respondent No.1 by the respondent No.2 in Reference Case No. 25 of 1989, as contained in Annexure-4.2. Some backgrounds and history of the case is necessary for disposal of this writ petition. The respondent No.1 joined at Bokaro Steel Plant as Machine Tool Operator on 5.8.1974 on an offer being made on 9.4.1974. He worked as such till 24.5.1976 and then he became absent and according to the respondent No.1 he was absent as he was arrested in connection with theft/embezzlement of some materials within the knowledge of the petitioner-Company and after being released from the jail, when he wanted to join in the service he was not allowed as his name was found to be struck off from the Rolls of the Company in terms of Clause-20 (xi) of the Certified Standing Orders. This happened in the year 1976 but the respondent No.1 sat tight over the matter and after about 10 years h...
Tag this Judgment!MoIn @ MoinuddIn Mian Vs. Amna Khatoon
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Surinder Sarup, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.1988 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby he rejected the petitioner's petition dated 17.8.1988, which was filed for dropping the proceeding on the basis of 'The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.2. Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party Amna Khatoon applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner which ended in a compromise by order dated 5.7.1983 as a result of which she became ready to live with the petitioner; copy of that order dated 5.7.1983 is Annexure-1.3. The compromise did not prove to be a lasting one. Therefore, the said Opposite Party again moved the Court for an order of payment of Rs. 250/- per month towards her maintenance and an order was made for deposit of Rs. 350/- by way of maintenance of the said Opposite Party by the petitioner and the petitioner complied with the order on 14.7...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›