Patna Court November 1996 Judgments
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Whether in the case of a Company, one of the Company's Directors alone can be recognised as the Occupier of the factory owned by it in terms of the amended Section 2(n) of the Factories Act or is it still open to a company to designate (by completely transferring to him the ultimate control of the factory) any of its employees, other than a Director as the Occupier of the factory? This is the question raised in these two writ petitions filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation (Petitioner No. 1) and one of its employees posted as the Senior Depot Manager, Namkum Depot (Petitioner No. 2). 2. On September 26, 1996, the judgment in this case was reserved after it was heard on three days. In course of hearing Mr. Arijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, brought to our notice a number of decisions of the different High Courts on this point. He fairly cited not only the decisions (of the High Courts of Bombay, Orissa, Karnataka, Calcutta,...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Babu and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. These seven writ petitions were heard analogously as common questions of law are involved. There are, however, certain factual; differences in respect of these matters and the same will be pointed out while dealing with them separately in this judgment. In all these writ petitions proceedings initiated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the SAFEMA) have been challenged.2. Before dealing with the specific challenge to the proceedings initiated under the said Act, certain salient features of the said Act and the nature of the proceedings initiated and the legal questions involved therein are considered by this Court.3. SAFEMA being Act No. 13 of 1976 was promulgated to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of Smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The preamble to SAFEMA explains the purpose behind the ena...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J1. Invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.91 in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3/83 (R).2. In order to bring out the point in clear perspective, it may be useful to set out some facts of the case.It is scam studded scenario where at the relevant time the petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education at Ranchi, when FIR was lodged alleging, inter alia, involvement of the petitioner with other officers and staff of the office in an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 479A, 120B, 149 IPC, Sections 5(2), 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Presentation of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Section 24/19 of the Bihar Sales Tax Ordinance. It appears that the then Deputy Collector, Ranchi submitted a written report to I.G....
Tag this Judgment!Chemicot India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at the admission stage.2. It appears that under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the petitioner-company wanted the respondent--Allahabad Bank--to make a reference to the body established under Section 4 of the Act for determination of the measures which may be adopted with respect to the petitioner-company which, according to the petitioners, has become a sick industrial company and in this regard the communications, vide annexures 11 to 14 to the writ application were made to the bank, but no step was taken.3. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, at this stage may not grant any relief or issue directions to the bank with respect to the petitioner's grievances, if any. This writ application is, according...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Sahu Vs. Commissioner South Chotanagpur and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
M.Y. Eqbal. J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.9.1981 passed by sub-divisional officer, Gumla and the order dated 4.6.1986 passed by Additional Collector, Gumla and the order dated 2.12.1986 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). There order are Annexure 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ application.2. The fact of the case in short is that a proceeding under Section 48 of the said Act in respect of plot No. 106/107, 108 measuring total area 3.74 decimals under Khata No. 83 of village Samal Police Station-Sasai, District-Gumla was initiated by the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla being S.A.R. Case No. 4 of 1980-81 for the restoration of land in favour of respondent No. 4 Learned Sub-divisional Officer passed the impugned order (Annexure-1) restoring the and in favour of private responden...
Tag this Judgment!Arbind Kumar Tewary Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has claimed for quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings including the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 12.9.1995 and thereafter and also for a direction not to proceed against the petitioner in the same matter any further.2. The facts are almost admitted in this case. In the month of April, 1989, the petitioner was appointed on a causal basis in the post of Khalasi under the respondent No. 2. In the month of July, 1989, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Junior Chemical Assistant but on 3.1.1990, the service of the petitioner was discontinued with immediate effect. The petitioner raised industrial dispute before the appropriate Government through Labour Department by notification dated 10.1.1991. The matter was referred to the Labor Court, Bokaro Steel City. After hearing both the parties and after the evidence was adduced by both the parties, the Labour Court vide order dated 21.7.1992 in terms...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Steel Industries Vs. Bihar Steel Mineral Development Corporatio ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. and M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to release in favour of petitioner 15% of the contract value together with interest against the schematic lay out and General Arrangement Drawings and the Plan which was approved by the respondents vide Memo No. 1410 dated 24th July 1990.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Limited being an Instrumentally of the State Government engaged in the Mining and Development of the Mineral Resources in the State of Bihar, on or about 24th July 1987 advertised for taking up two Projects, namely, Graphite Benefication and Magnetite Grinding Benefication. A copy of the tender notice is Annexure-1 to the writ application. Pursuant to that tender notice, the respondent No. 3 Bihar State Small Industr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Nityanand Datkullyar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal. On a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent the matter was placed before us to consider the said question. It is worth to be mentioned here that initially the appellants filed Miscellaneous Appeal and a Single Judge of this Court by order dated 13.9.96 directed the office to put up the appeal before a Division Bench along with the maintainability matter. Subsequently, learned Counsel for the appellants converted the Miscellaneous Appeal into a Letters Patent Appeal.2. The petitioner-respondent moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3349 of 1994(R) with a prayer that the petitioner should be given time bound promotion in Senior Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- with effect form the 4th Pay...
Tag this Judgment!Vagish Kumar Vs. Smt. Sandhya Kumari
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
S.N. Jha, J.1. This civil revision by the husband is directed against order directing him to pay maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation to the wife opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'the Act').2. The suit seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the husband-petitioner on 31.1.94. The application seeking interim maintenance etc., was filed on 20.6.96. The impugned order was passed on 9.7.96, made effective from March 1994 itself. The suit has since been disposed of on 23.8.96. The court below has granted the husband the decree of divorce but asked him to pay monthly allowance of Rs. 2500/- during her entire life and other expenses in terms of Section 25 of the Act. Such payment is to be made from the month of August 1996. It may be stated that the petitioner had preferred appeal being F.A. No. 478 of 1996 against the said judgment and order in this Court, which is pending.3. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Jha learned Counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rajjak @ Rajak Mian Churihar Vs. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The order dated 30.7.89 passed in Hazaribagh Land Restoration Revision No. 109 of 1987 has been impugned by the petitioner in this writ application.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. In January, 1984 one Bisua Karamali, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh respondent No. 3 purportedly under Section 46 (4-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the possession of the lands measuring about 1.52 acres appertaining to plot Nos. 1033 and 1035 under Khata No. 1 of village Kujju, P.S. Mandu. district Hazaribagh in his favour. The said application is Annexure 1. It is stated in the petitioner that his land's were settled to him and his brother by ex-landlord in Sambat 1986 (i.e.. in the year 1929). On this application being filed, a Land Restoration Case No, 1/84 was registered. On being noticed petitioner filed a show cause contending, inter alia, that relief under Section 46 (4-A) was no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »