Patna Court December 1997 Judgments
Sinha K.C. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
N.K. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri P.N. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Y. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is the Manager of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited Jamshedpur (hereinafter the 'Company'). He has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the 'Code') for quashing of the order dated, June 25, 1997, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, taking cognizance against him under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 in a complaint case C/2 and No. 14/97. 3. Only such of the facts as are necessary for disposal of the application need be stated. A prosecution report was filed by the Factory Inspector O.P. No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the petitioner the Manager of the Company as also Saroj J. Gandhi occupier had committed an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act for violation of the provisions of Section 88 of t...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Raghubar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Ashok Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment dated March 6, 1980, and the decree thereunder passed by Shri G.N. Gupta, First Subordinate Judge, Chapra, in Mortgage Suit No. 16 of 1977 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the suit ex parte. 2. Briefly put, the case of the plaintiff is as hereunder. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the sons of Satya Narain Singh, and his wife were members of a joint Hindu family. Satya Narain Singh, as karta of the joint Hindu family, took an instalment credit loan of Rs. 16,700 on November 7, 1970, through draft No. A. M. 987307, dated November 7, 1970, payable to the managing director, Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., for purchase of a tractor from Chapra branch of the plaintiff. The instalment credit loan was advanced to Satya Narain Singh on execution of a registered simple mortgage bond dated March 2, 1970 (exhibit 1), by him as karta of the joint Hindu family in favour of the plaintiff fo...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Tahal Sao and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.9.1989 passed by respondent No. 2, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in M.J. Case No. 30 of 1987 (D) whereby and where under the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short), has been allowed and it was held that the applicant-respondent No. 1 is entitled to get payment of dues amounting to Rs. 95,664.64 from the petitioner.2. The aforesaid M.J. Case No. 30 of 1987 (D) arose out of the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 33C(2)(a) of the Act claiming full back wages for the period 15.2.1982 to October, 1987. The case of the respondent No. 1, claimant was that he was originally appointed as permanent Miner/Loader in Bagdigi Colliery and he remained absent in his duty from February, 1974, due to mental imbalance and was under treatment at Ranchi. It is stated t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Nand Kishore Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-01-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 1.5.97 passed by 2nd Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No. 20/16 of 1988-95 dismissing the suit on a preliminary issue as being barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petitioner has filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration that the ex-parte decree passed in Partition Suit No. 93 of 1966 is fraudulent, illegal, void and not binding on him, as well as for decree of partition with respect to his one-eighth share in the suit properties as well as other properties which may be found in possession of the joint family. The Court below has held that the parties as well as subject-matter of suit being common in both the suits, the joint family land having already been partitioned in the previous suit, the plaintiff cannot seek fresh partition and his claim is barred by res judicata.3. The only point for consideration is whether the decree which is u...
Tag this Judgment!Tetri Kuer and ors. Vs. Raj Mano Kuer and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-01-1997
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. By the order impugned dated 7.12.1995, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Garhwa, in Partition Suit No. 9 of 1994, the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiffs respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been allowed and a direction has been issued for appointment of the receiver.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellant submitted that there was no material whatsoever before the learned Subordinate Judge to pass an order upon the petition under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code and the learned Court below merely on the basis of a report of the Pleader Commissioner, which was submitted much before the filing of the present petition by the plaintiffs, has passed an order for appointment of the receiver.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was no material before the learned Court below showing that there was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›