Patna Court April 1996 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.
Hira Prasad Singh and Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.1. The Division Bench, while admitting C.W.J.C. No. 3248 of 1988, doubted the decision in the case, Baldeo Chandhary v. The state of Bihar and Ors. : AIR1986Pat84 , wherein it was held that the exemption of 40 kilometers allowed on the nationalized routes by virtue of Notification No. S.O. 825 dated 10.6.1981 would not apply in the cases of grant of fresh permits; and referred it for fresh consideration by a larger Beach. C.W.J.C No. 7156 of 1989 was admitted and the same was also ordered to be heard along with above mentioned writ application. Accordingly both the writ applications have been placed for hearing before this Bench.2. The petitioners were granted permits to ply their buses by the competent authority, taking into account the above mentioned notification dated 10.6.1981. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, the respondent, filed appeals; against the said order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which were allowed. The petitioners have...
Anand Electricals and anr. Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This review petition has been filed by the above named petitioners who were opposite parties in Civil Revision No. 332 of 1994 (R), for review of the order passed in the above civil revision petition vide order dated 11.7.95, under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C.2. The main grounds of this review petition are that the order passed in the civil revision petition No. 332 of 1994 (R) is in direct contradiction of the judgment of the Apex court as reported in : [1988]3SCR402 , Union of India and Anr. v. L.K. Ahuja and Co., which could not be made available to the petitioners at the time of hearing of the above revision petition and as such this Court come to an erroneous decision. His further contention is with reference to 1982 SCC page 624, State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Private Limited, when there is discrepancy in view of the contrary decision by the Apex Court, the review petition is required t...
C.i.C.-28512 H.J.L.T. Col. Katti Gopal Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
S.K. Chattopadhayaya, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.1.94 as contained in annexure 7 by reason of which statutory complaint of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Army Act, 1950 has been rejected. A prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.2. That facts of the case lies in a narrow compass : The petitioner joined as Second Lieutenant in the Corps of Signals in the year, 1963 and got commission in the Army Service Corps. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Major on 21.8.82 and in 1988 to the post of Lt. Colonel. In 1971 he was assigned the duties of war time operations. He also served in Jammu and Kashmir dining the years 1975-77, He imparted training as Instructor in Tank Transporter Officers course and commanded different three units as independent charge including the present one as Commanding Officer. The petitioner was bestowed with some laurels an...
Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Central C ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-01-1996
A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned clause in the tender document, by the petitioner Company in the following facts of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner Company is that it is a firm enjoying considerable reputation in the field of providing security services to various organisations. In the writ petition it has given a list of its impressive array of clients both in the private and public sector and has claimed that the petitioner Company has at its disposal the requisite expertise and equipments for providing security cover to various organisations. 3. The petitioner Company has also claimed that it has been providing security services to the Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.L.) since the year 1992 and its agreement for providing security services to the C.C.L. has been extended from time to time and as a result of such extension, it is provided such services till the 31st of March, 1996. 4. From the fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›