Patna Court May 2003 Judgments
Bala Paper Mills (Bihar) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-23-2003
P.K. Deb, J. 1. All these cases have been heard analogous at the admission stage as per the view expressed by this Bench in the order dated 23-1-2003 passed in M.J.C. No. 1722/2002 and being endorsed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by His Lordship's order dated 9-4-2003. 2. The parties to the case are almost the same and the dispute pivoted round the same Unit in the name and style of M/s. Bala Paper Mills Private Limited, the original promoter being the writ petitioners of the above two writ petitions. Before entering into the facts, the admitted position may be stated in brief as follows. 3. The writ petitioners are Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and its incorporation in the Register of Companies had been done on 1-8-1981. The purpose behind the establishment of the Company was for manufacturing papers and boards. The capital cost was estimated at a few lakhs of rupees. The scheme was examined by the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kusheshwar Asthan Prakhand Matasyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. V ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-2003
Aftab Alam, J. 1. This case is to be seen as a sequel to a previous round of litigation in which one of the two contesting parties was one Ram Kumar Mukhiya, the husband of Smt. Ram Sundari Devi who, in her capacity as Chairperson, represents the petitioner Co-operative Society in this case. The previous litigation had an acrimonious, protracted and chequered course and that matter came to this Court more than once. It last came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4890 of 2002 filed by Ram Kumar Mukhiya that writ petition was dismissed by me by order dated, 15-11-2002 by which the dispute was decided against Ram Kumar Mukhiya and in favour of respondents 14 and 15. The order passed in the writ petition was affirmed in LPA No. 1217 of 2002 and the S.L.P. filed by Ram Kumar Mukhiya against the orders passed by the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. 2. The previous round of litigation had arisen from Ram Kumar Mukhiya's endeavours to subvert the very formation and coming into...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Kumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: May-19-2003
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. The complainant preferred this case for a total compensation of Rs. 17,14,355.30 which includes actual loss sustained to the insured premises, compensation for deficiency of service and litigation cost besides interest @ 12% per annum. 2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Bahurani Jewellers situated at Patrakarnagar, District Patna dealing in the jewellery items. The shop was hypothecated under financial assistance from Canara Bank, Kankarbagh, Patna (O.P. No. 3) under cash credit limit of Rs. four lacs. The complainant took shopkeepers insurance policy with O.P. No. 3 for a sum insured of Rs. 8,75,000/- effective from 2.4.1998 to 1.4.1999. The said policy lapsed on 1.4.1999 and it was renewed with insurance cover of Rs. 16 lacs. The renewal policy was Rs. 8,550/- per annum. The complainant was not provided the policy though renewal was made. It is alleged that on 28.4.1999 an incident of looting/robbery took place ...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Ply and Others Vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: May-13-2003
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. The complainant has claimed Rs. 12,16,118.30 from the O.P. (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bihar Sharif) for the damages and loss caused to him due to accidental fire in his business premises which was insured with the O.P. 2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant No. 1 is the firm M/s. Asian Ply and the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. The business consist of making ply wood. The machineries for making ply wood, raw materials kept in the business premises and finished goods etc. were insured as accident insurance policy and fire policy (A) for the period 22.11.1996 to 21.11.1997, both for a sum of Rs. Seven lacs each. The insurance was in the name of S.B.I., Barh and account was in the name of M/s. Asian Ply at Barh. The valuation of the machinery and other assessories at Rs. 2,50,000/- and valuation of the stock at Rs. 4,50,000/- in each policy was accepted by the O.P., New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred as Company). On...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Veena Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-09-2003
Aftab Alam, J.1. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and seek the same relief(s) on behalf of the respective petitioners. These cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in all the five writ petitions are wholesale kerosene dealers. They hold dealerships from different petrol companies and carry on their business on the basis of wholesale kerosene dealer's licences issued under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order). They are aggrieved by the direction for cancellation of their licences issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Food, Supplies and Commerce, Government of Bihar under his circular letter No. 3281, dated 6-8-2002 (Annexure-8 in C. W.J.C. 9944 of 2002). It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the direction issued by the Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Commerce is illegal and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri A.K. Basak and ors. and the State of Bihar Vs. Bishwanath Prasad P ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-08-2003
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. 1. There are two Letters Patent Appeals, one is by the State of Bihar and other is by the Officers who are party respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition is CWJC No. 7644 of 1995. It was decided on 15-11-1996. 2. The State of Bihar challenges the merit of the decision. The other set of respondents who have filed the Letters' Patent Appeal are officers of the State but have done so in their personal capacity, as they are aggrieved by costs which has been awarded by the learned Judge against each of them @ 1000/- each. The total cost is Rs. 5,000/-. 3. The issue in the writ petition was not as fresh that it was brought in 1996 for the first time. The petitioner Bishwanath Prasad Pandey was claiming his promotion and in fact had to come to the High Court on three occasions. These cases were CWJC No. 7076 of 1994, MJC No. 735 of 1995 (this was a contempt case) and CWJC No. 7644 of 1995 i.e. the writ petition against the decision on which the present Letter ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Anil Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-08-2003
Chandramouli Kr. Prasad, J.1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated March 29, 2001 (Annexure-4) whereby the prayer of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been accepted and the petitioner was directed to be relieved from the services of the Bank at the close of the office hours on April 20, 2001. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Branch Manager in MMG Scale II with all consequential benefits.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as the Branch Manager of Hajipur Branch of Union Bank of India. The Union Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' came out with a Scheme known as Union Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000-01. Petitioner opted for retirement under the Scheme by filing application on December 1, 2000 but later on he filed anoth...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Jamuar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2003
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the petitioners pray for issuance of direction upon the respondents to promote them to the posts of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, as they are officiating in the posts of Deputy Commissioner of Excise since 1994 and 1995, respectively, and also for a direction to the respondents to pay salary and other allowance to them treating them as in regular cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Excise from the date of notification, whereby and whereunder they were made incharge Deputy Commissioners of Excise. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were promoted on substantive basis on the posts of Assistant Commissioner of Excise vide Notification Nos. 2806 dated 5-6-1999 and 255 dated. 3-7-1995, respectively, and thereafter they were made incharge Deputy Commissioners of Excise and they are functioning on the posts on officiating basis till date. It is further submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Balajee Ingot India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2003
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The petitioner, a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has filed the present writ application challenging the order, dated 20-10-2000 passed in Appeal No. E/108 of 1999 and Cross-objection No. C.O. 29/1999 by the Eastern Bench, Calcutta of the Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby it has affirmed the order, dated 16-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, holding that Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') abatement is permissible only if the factory as a whole is closed for a period of seven days or more and the abatement is not permissible on closure of one of the furnaces of the factory and on that ground rejected the claim of the petitioner for abatement.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is producing non-alloy steel ingots and billets from two induction furnaces at Lakhisarai, known as Unit No. I and U...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Mehta Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-06-2003
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J. 1. This petition complains that between the second tube-well which has been installed, the first one should not be shut off and both should continue as Patna needs water. As Counsel for the petitioner was submitting, the submissions were interjected by the Counsel for the Patna Water Board, Mr. Prem Kumar Verma, submitting before the Court that a similar matter is before another Bench and the petitioner ought to have mentioned this and the petition is a duplication and is otherwise misplaced. 2. It depends on how this matter is viewed. In mediocrity or a true concern about conserving and preserving a precious natural resource-ground water. To that extent, may be both the petitioner and the respondents may not have perceived what environment and ecology is about. 3. The only thing which needs to be kept in mind is scarcity of water, in consumption and production both. This petition is about water as a municipal supply to those who live within ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »