Patna Court December 1997 Judgments
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Sharif Alias Ashrafi
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Devi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondent.2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.6.1990 and decree dated 16.6.1990, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur, in Title Appeal No. 3-A of 1988, whereby and whereunder the appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1987 passed by the learned Munsif decreeing the suit and remitted back the suit to the trial Court for giving a finding with regard to the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and to try the suit.3. It is submitted by Mr. Devi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that no issue on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction was framed in the suit before the learned trial Court nor any objection was taken by the defendant-respondent for non-framing of the issue on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the question of pe...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam Tootoo Imam Vs. Gulshan Sahkari Gr ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Sachidanand Jha, J.1. This Civil revision by the defendant is directed against order dated 5th July, 1997 passed by the IInd Subordinate Judge, Patna, in Title Suit No. 402 of 1986. By the said order the application filed by the petitioner to decide certain issues as preliminary issues in the suit under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.2. The issues which the petitioner wanted to be decided as preliminary issues are (i) Is the suit legally pending? (ii) Does the cause of action subsist, if not, whether the cause of action was extinguished even before filing of Misc. Case No. 50 of 1990 and (iii). Is the admission of the plaint of the 'instant suit on 9.7.91 to be treated as fresh suit under Order VII, Rule 13, CPC instituted after period of limitation?3. The plaintiffs-opposite party filed. Title Suit No. 402 of 1986 for a decree of specific performance of contract of sale. It is; not necessary to notice the plaintiffs' case for the disposal of this ci...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Poddar Vs. Archana Sahay and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Narayan Roy, J.1. I have heard counsel for the parties.2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.6.1987, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Title (Compensation) Suit No. 69 of 1984, by which the learned Tribunal has directed for payment of compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs. 2,88,000, out of which Rs. 1,50,000 was payable by the insurance company (respondent No. 2) and the rest by the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the appellant.3. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, mainly contended that the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle in question, is not liable to pay compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, because the vehicle in question was insured by the insurance company (respondent No. 2) and it was a comprehensive insurance and, therefore, the insurance company was covering the entire risk and as such the insurance company was to indemnify the...
Tag this Judgment!Braj Kishore Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This case relates to appointment of respondent (No. 3) Mr. Dhruv Lal Yadav as Special Public Prosecutor at Patna to conduct the Weight and Measurements cases and cases relating to Food Adulteration Act.2. The brief facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.Admittedly, the respondent No. 3 was enrolled as an Advocate on 20.11.87 and is a practising lawyer at Patna. He has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Weight and Measurements Cases at Patna by a letter dated 24.12.1996. By another letter dated 27.5.1997, the said respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the cases at Patna relating to Food Adulteration Act.According to the petitioner, appointment of respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor made by impugned orders dated 24.12.96 (Annexure-2) and 27.5.1997 are illegal, he having not completed ten years of practice as an Advocate. The Counsel relied on Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. H...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Deo Sah Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.1. This case was heard on the 17th November, 1997, and Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Additional Advocate General HI was requested to produce the Gazette Notification regarding fixation of the storage limit. Again, this appeal was listed on the 24th November, 1997 and at the request of the learned Addl. Advocate-General III, this case was adjourned. Today, the Addl. Advocate-General III has appeared and submits that apart from the letter, dated the 11th October, 1974, by which the storage limit was fixed, there was no Gazette Notification showing fixation of storage limit in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Order'). Accordingly, this appeal is being disposed on the record and in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 17.2.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. A...
Tag this Judgment!Abhimanyu Prasad Sah Vs. Murlidhar Bhawsinghka
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties in the limitation matter. In the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the civil revision is condoned and the limitation petition is allowed.2. This civil revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, the BBC Act) by the defendant arises from an order of eviction.3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1996 in the Court of 1st Subordinate Judge, Godda for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, which is part of Holding No. 542 of Ward No. 3 of the Godda Municipality, described in Schedule-A to the plaint, on the ground of expiry of the period of tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the premises was let out to defendant-petitioner for a fixed period or 2 years from 1.5.94 under registered deed of kirayanama. The tenancy thus, according to him expired by efflux of time on 30.4.96. The petitioner did not, however, hand over the premises...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ujjawal Kumar Ray and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents on the point of limitation as well as merit of the case.2. It is an admitted fact that limitation for filing the appeal expired on 19.3.97 and the instant appeal was filed on 23.6.97 and therefore, there is more than three months delay in filing the appeal and as such, the same is barred by limitation. However, considering the important point of law canvassed by the appellants in this appeal, the delay is condoned.3. the question as to whether an illegitimate son of a deceased employee is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground has been answered by the learned Single Judge in affirmative and thus this appeal.4. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellants, has contended that in view of the specific policy of the Company, only the dependants of a deceased employee, namely, the widow, the married daughter, son and a legally adopted son can be ap...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Compaly Limited Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent State of Bihar and its Officers to renew the petitioner's lease, which expired on 31.12.95, in terms of the renewal clause contained therein. A further prayed has been made for a direction to the State Government to adhere to the principles applicable to the renewal of all Government leases as contained in various guidelines/circulars of the State Government.2. The petitioner is a public limited company and is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products which is being carried on in its steel plant at Jamshedpur. The petitioner's case is that after the entire land of Jamshedpur vested in the State pursuant to the enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act and subsequent amendment of the said Act, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent State of Bihar in pursuance of which a deed of lease was executed and regi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Prasad Mukherjee @ Ashok Mukherjee Vs. Smt. Jyoti Prasad Mukherj ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The members of a Hindu Joint Family in order to resolve their disputes over some properties, amicably decided to refer the dispute to some arbitrators. They deposed their faith on some of the eminent lawyers and well-wishers of the entire family by appointing them as their arbitrators. The arbitrators entered into the arbitration and gave their award on 11.6.93.2. The first-party, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, filed a petition before the Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act praying therein for issuing of notices to the parties to show cause as to why the award filed in the Court would not be made rule of the Court. This petition was filed on 12.7.93 and out of five members of the second party, three of them, namely, Smt. Renuka Mukherjee, Sri Ashok Prasad Mukherjee and Smt. Sriparna Banerjee filed their objections under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act. However, one of the second member, Smt. Saswati Mukherjee, by filing a petition, prayed before t...
Tag this Judgment!Techno Trade Corporation Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The petitioner, a proprietorship concerned, has moved this Court being aggrieved by the letter dated 12.5.97 issued by the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation at Ranchi.2. The petitioner being an authorised stockist/distributor of some companies, supplied goods to the major industries including M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation (in short 'the Corporation'). Some time on 27.6.94 the Corporation made an enquiry from M/s. Rallies India Limited, Engineering Division, Calcutta regarding purchase of certain machineries and the petitioner being its agent. M/s. Rallies India Ltd. forwarded the same to it and in turn the petitioner addressed a letter to the Assistant Manager (Purchase) of the Corporation on 18.7.94 quoting the rates in respect of the concerned goods. This letter in Annexure 2. In its quotation the petitioner specified its terms and conditions to the payment which was 95% to be paid against proforma invoice and balance 5% on CRB. The respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »