Patna Court July 1997 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.
India Firebricks and Vs. the Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay additional 1/3rd charges and 3% transformer loss since 1975 as demanded by the Respondent-Board vide electricity Bill dated 13.12.1993. A further prayer has also been made that the Respondent-Board is not entitled to disconnected the electric line of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of the additional demand made by it.2. The petitioner, a subsidiary Company of M/s. Bharat Refractory, a Government of India Undertaking, is engaged in manufacturing of various types of refractories having its registered office at Bokaro Steel City. The petitioner's case is that it has paid to the Respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board the electric charges with regard to the actual consumption of electrical energy regularly and up to date payment has been made. But all of a sudden the petitioners had received the Bill dated 15.12.1992 for a sum of Rs. 27,68,835.43 paise....
Chhaya Rani (Smt.) Vs. Dhan Devi @ Dhan Dei (Smt.)
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court arises out of a judgment dated March 17, 1990 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in M. A.No. 97 of 1986 (R), dismissing the said appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. While admitting the appeal the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 30 of the Act was raised and has been kept open for decision by this Court.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of maintainability of the appeal has referred a Bench decision of this Court in Gulabadei Ahir v. Union of India, 1988 PLJR 1122.Before deciding the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal it would be proper to state the relevant facts of this case. The deceased...
Seth Srenikbhai Kasturbhai and ors. Etc. Vs. Seth Chandulal Kasturchan ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. The abovementioned First Appeals and (Civil Revisions) are taken up together for disposal as being heard analogously and the parties being the same. F.A. No. 146 of 1990 (R) has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 23 of 1968 whereas F.A. No. 54 of 1990(R) has been filed by the same appellantswho were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 10 of 1967. Similarly, F.A. No. 55 of 1990(R) has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 and the same appellants have filed F.A. No. 145 of 1990(R) in which they were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 23 of 1968. F.A. No. 82 of 1990(R) has been filed by the State of Bihar against Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 in which the State of Bihar was the defendant. 2. Analogous judgment in both the suits being Title Suit Nos. 10 of 1967 and 23 of 1968 have been passed by Shri C. S. Choubey, the then Subordinate Judge I, Giridih on 3-3-1990. The first suit in point of time is Title Suit No. 10 of 1967, which has been filed by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›