Patna Court July 1995 Judgments
Smt. Anandi Devi Vs. Mahendra Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
B.L. Yadav, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) in a suit for declaration that ex parte decree dated 17-2-1961 passed in Partition Suit No. 38 of1960 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gaya is illegal and without jurisdiction and also for restraining defendant No. 1 from taking further steps in pursuance of the ex parte decree. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit with the averments that there was an earlier suit No. 38 of 1960 filed by the present defendant Smt. Anandi Singh in the Court of Subordinate Judge III, Gaya. Lakshman Singh was also made party to the suit, whereas other sons namely, Mahendra Singh and Upendra Singh (the respondents 1 and 2), who (Illegible) minors, were not parties and a preliminary decree obtained on 17th February,1961 was illegal and fraudulent. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant appellant refuting the averments made in the plaint and alleging that Sakaldip Singh, was th...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Bihar State Super Phosphate Factory Vs. the Presiding Of ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
R.N. Sahay, J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the award dated November 11, 1987 rendered by the respondent No. 2 on the reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The following questions were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. '(1) Whether Shri Girindra Kishore Mishra, Commercial Assistant is entitled to officiating pay for performing his duty on the posts of lower Division Assistants from 1968 to 1971 and Upper Division Assistant from 1976 to 1979? If so, how much and from which dates? (2) Whether Shri Girindra Kishore Mishra, Commercial Assistant is entitled to promotion on the post of Upper Division Clerk from 1976 and on the post of Sales Officer from1979? If so, from which date and on what post he should get promotion? 2. The Labour Court having examined the rival evidence held that the workman respondent was entitled to officiating pay for performing his duty on the po...
Tag this Judgment!Biren Poddar and ors. and Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
P.K. Deb, J.1. Both these writ petitions are taken up together as they relate to same set of facts and points of law involved are the same.2. The grievances of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are that the respondent No. 1 floated its share to general public as per the decision taken by the Government of India. In the month of December, 1993, the respondent No. 1 offered twelve crores forty lacs Equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share. Cut of this, offer to generaf public was to the tune of Rs. 750 crores. Such Public issue of the equity shares of the State Bank of India was opened on 15.12.1993 and closed on 24.12.1993. Extensive advertisements were made for wider circulation to the general public and in response to the same, the petitioners in both the writ petitions applied by filing separate and individual applications for allotment of 50 Equity Sahres by depositing cheque of Rs. 5,000/- each, details of which were given in Para-9 of the writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›