Patna Court September 2000 Judgments
Management of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Presiding Offi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2000
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner of both the cases challenged common award dated October 20, 1998 passed in Reference Case Nos. 24/81, 11/90 by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. 2. By the impugned Award the learned Presiding Officer while identifying the workmen, ordered for their absorption under principal employer. One of the questions raised is whether in absence of notification under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 a contract can be deemed to be abolished/terminated, in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. 3. The case has a chequered history of about 20 years, as evident from relevant facts mentioned hereunder: The State of Bihar by notification No.4/92-16072/80L&E; 1523 dated July 9, 1981 opined that an industrial dispute exists between Management of Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., Jamshedpur (TISCO) and their workmen represented by Jamshedpur Contractors Workers Union and Industrial Mazdoor Union, Jamsh...
Tag this Judgment!Bishwanath Maheshwari (Deceased) Substituted by Sona Devi and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
A.K. Prasad, J.1. This Second Appeal was brought by the original tenant, who died during the pendency of this appeal, and his legal representatives have been substituted on record, against whom the order of partial eviction from a portion of the suit premises, which is a room, used as kitchen, was passed by the lower appellate Court.2. The respondent/landlord brought Title (Election) Suit No. 20 of 1986 in the Court of the Munsif, Chaibasa, for evicting the defendant/original tenant (Bishwanath Maheshwari) from the western portion of the first floor of the suit premises, which is a part of Municipal Holding No. 184 (old) (new 8/99) situate at mohalla Tambakupatti within Chaibasa Municipal Ward No. 8, which is fully described in Schedule to the plaint on the ground of his personal bonafide requirement. Broadly speaking, the case of the respondent/landlord is that his family consist of his son, two daughters, his wife mainly and himself. The ground floor of the building is used for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Singh Vs. the Bihar State Housing Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand contained in letter dated 23.12.1997 (Annexure 8), issued by the Revenue Officer of the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna to the Executive Engineer of the Board at Gaya, pursuant to which she is required to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,72,942/- in addition to the amount which has already been paid by her as the price of M.I.G. House No. M.H. 13 at Gaya allotted to her.2. In short, the relevant facts are that on 28.12.1976, the petitioner filed an application for allotment of M.I.G. house in pursuance of the advertisement. On 3.9.1983, lottery for the said purpose was held by the respondent Board and the petitioner was allotted the house in question, about which she received intimation, vide letter dated 3.9.1983, contained in Annexure 2. Pursuant to the said letter, she received the allotment letter dated 3.9.1983, contained in Annexure 3 also, whereby she was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,560...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Baraik and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Ashok Kumar Verma, J.1. The appellants Upendra Baraik and Smt. Magan Tirkey have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13-2-1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1990 by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted both the accused Upendra Baraik and Smt. Magan Tirkey under Sections 366, 368 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 366/368/34 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (rupees two hundred) each. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also convicted Upendra Baraik under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376/IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine both the accused have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The sentences are to run concurrently.2. In short, the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Zikrul Islam Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the appellate order dated 12.6.2000 (Annexure 6) passed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur (respondent No. 2) in Encroachment Case No. 304/98, whereby and where under the appeal preferred by him (petitioner) against the order dated 22.1.1998 passed by the Circle Officer, Pusa, District Samastipur (respondent No. 3) in Encroachment Case No. 1/96-97 has been dismissed. He has also assailed the validity of the said order dated 22.1.1998 (Annexure 4) of the Circle Officer wherein it has been held that the petitioner should remove his alleged encroachment over 29 decimals of land of C.S. Plot No. 2661.2. According to the case of the petitioner, Plot No. 2661 corresponding to Plot No. 4591 having an area of 29 decimals was recorded in the cadastral survey khatian as Gair Majarua Aan Bakabje Malik. Five mango trees in possession of the Malik, namely, Babu Md. Salim alias Bhola Babu were also menti...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Sudhir Kumar Pandey and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
N. Pandey, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court on behalf of the plaintiff Is against the judgment of a learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 61 of 1955 (R). whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree in Money Suit No. 50/17 of 1981/84 was set aside.2. In view of the points involved in this appeal and further that the learned trial Court as well as the Court of appeal have stated the facts of the case in great details, it is not necessary to reiterate the entire facts. Suffice it to say that defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff Bank and applied for a loan to purchase a Chassis of Mini Bus. At the relevant time, the total cost involved was Rs. 1,30,000/-, out of which the plaintiff Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 97,500/- by way of loan repayable on demand together with the interest thereon at the rate of 41/2 per cent over the Reserve Bank of India's rate and minimum at the rate of 131/2 per cent per annum and consequent to such agr...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Prasad Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, prayer on behalf of the petitioner is for quashing the resolution No. 254 dated February 5, 2000 of Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', initiating a departmental proceeding for the same set of charges based on same set of facts with same set of witnesses and common evidence for which a Vigilance P.S. Case No. 2 of 1996 filed by the Vigilance Department of the Board under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1947, amended Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the petitioner has also been lodged, and further commanding the respondents to stay further proceeding in the departmental proceeding till the disposal of the said Vigilance Case pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his relief only with respect to the second one wherein p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Buddhi Devi Dharamshala and Sri Kaushiki Nath Mahadeo Mandir Vs. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.8.2000, contained in Annexure 5, passed by the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts declaring Srimati Buddhi Devi Dharamshala and Shri Kaushiki Nath Mahadeo Mandir, Aminabad, Semapur, Katihar as a public trust on the basis of the deed creating trust.2. Earned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and bad in law inasmuch as in case there was any dispute with respect to the nature of the trust, the authority should have proceeded under Section 43 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but the Chairman of the Board (respondent No. 2) has passed the order without holding any such inquiry. It is also submitted that from the trust deed it would appear that it is a private trust and not a public trust. As such, the declaration of the Trust in question as being a ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Jha Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Shashank Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner, who during the relevant period was posted as Excise Clerk-Cum-Accountant and also was discharging his duties as Accountant was put under suspension by Annexure-20/1 in contemplation of departmental proceedings.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to his dereliction of duty due to supply of forged challans, a loss of Rs. 11,41,691.40 have been incurred by the State. Subsequently by Annexure-21 charge-sheet was submitted on the petitioner but according to earned Counsel though he had asked for certain documents so that he can effectively answer to this charge, the said has still been denied to him.4. In this regard, it is contended by earned Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in the year 1981 and had an unblemished career till 1994, when departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Subsequently, on 4.11.1996 he was terminated from service on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Prakash Khanduja Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. J.P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and earned Counsel for the State.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report hearing No. 86/99 for an offence under Section 379, 411, 414, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts alleged in the First Information Report do not constitute an offence against the petitioner and the First Information Report has been lodged with mala fide intention to harass and humiliate this petitioner, learned Counsel further submitted that the police has no authority under law to investigate the case in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1999 as the licensing officer or any other officer authorised by the licensing off...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »