Patna Court May 2004 Judgments
Satrughan Pd. Sharma Vs. P.G. Super Sound Industries
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: May-13-2004
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. This complaint has been heard ex parte, as the O.P. did not appear inspite of the notice. The complainant has filed the case against the O.P. with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay the cost of cassettes Rs. 1,00,000/- and to refund back Rs. 6,000/- as paid by the complainant to the O.P. and also claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and further claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for defame the complainants name and goodwill in the market by producing fake cassette and claimed another Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 2. The brief fact of the case is that on 28.10.1996 an order was placed to manufacture 1000 cassettes in the name of Nandia Chhappan Chhuriya. (Bhojpuri) to the O.P. on the consideration of total manufacturing amount of Rs. 13,400/- only. For the compltion of the above cassette the complainant has given the O.P. master copy of the cassettee and also paid Rs. 6,000/- as advance under the agreement and rest of the amou...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narayan Rao and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-12-2004
Aftab Alam, J.1. This Civil Review seeks to keep alive the controversy arising from the closure of the Hot Dip Plant (H.D.P.), one of the units of the Tin Plate Company, Jamshedpur.2. The employer/management obtained permission for closure of the unit as required under Section 250 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, from the Appropriate Government vide order dated 16.3.2000. The Appropriate Government granted permission for closure having regard to the introduction of a scheme of Voluntary retirement by the management for the workmen of the unit.3. After the grant of permission for closure by order, dated 16.3.2000 the workmen employed in the unit, about 1000 in number, were left with two options, either to accept the package under the V.R.S. or to accept a much lower amount of statutory retrenchment compensation.4. It was at that stage that the 4 workmen of the unit (T.V.R) Raju and three others) came to this Court in CWJC No. 2933 of 2000, challenging the order, dated 16.3.2000 by w...
Tag this Judgment!Electrical Executive Engineer Vs. Siya Devi
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: May-12-2004
D.P.S. Choudhary, President: 1. O.P.-Bihar State Electricity Board, Barauni Division has filed this appeal against the order dated 4.7.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 48/2002 by District Forum, Begusarai whereby and whereunder appellant has been directed to grant fresh connection to the complainant after realizing necessary fees if any and further directed to provide commercial connection to the complainants premises within thirty days from the date of order besides a compensation of Rs. 500/- and litigation cost also Rs. 500/- has been awarded against the appellant. 2. The brief fact of the case is that husband of the complainant namely Ram Bachhan Pandit was the consumer of the appellant bearing Consumer No. BR 1306 under D.S. Category. On the application of one Amaresh Kumar dated 20.10.1994 the line was disconnected as there had been fire accident in her house on 30.9.1994. Thereafter the complainant applied for providing commercial connection on 26.3.2001 and deposited Rs. 15/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-11-2004
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. 1. The order impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal is dated 4 March, 2004 on CWJC No. 10944 of 2000 : Surendra Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors..2. The issue apparently had arisen when the erstwhile licence holder under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 did not receive the renewal of his licence to quarry. Thus, the issue. Any renewal which could have made dated to 1973.3. The issues are, as the State contends, that since 1993 no licences have been renewed.4. This aspect is not denied in the writ petition and the petitioner accepts on record when he places annexure '9' while submitting on it in paragraph 13 of writ petition. It is not only the petitioner but there are others, also, who perhaps have been denied the renewal of such licences.5. This matter relates to an area near Bhimbandh in Munger district where quarrying of stones has been stopped. There is a hillock within this district. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that many year...
Tag this Judgment!Sunaina Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-10-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha for the petitioner, Mr. Abbas Hsaider J.C. to GP No. II for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Dhruv Narayan for respondent No. 5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure- 7), passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Munger, in Munger Revenue Mutation Revision No. 9/96-97 (Sunaina Devi v. Sheonandan Singh and Ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner under Section 17 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner acquired right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dt. 31.12.85. Thereafter she filed an application under the provisions of the Act, for mutation which was registered as Case No. 55/86-87. The learned Circle Officer, Dharhara,...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Mehrotra Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-10-2004
Mridula Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 28.4.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 2457(c) of 2002 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) filed complaint Case No. 2457(c) of 2002 on 29.11.2002 against M/s. Sunil Polyplast Ltd. and its Managing Director and Executive Director, namely, S.K Mehrotra and Kishan Mehrotra. It is stated in the complaint petition that accused No. 1 Sunil Polyplast Ltd. is a Public Limited Company and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are Managing Director, and Executive Director of the company. The accused persons approached the complainant for a term loan and the complainant sanctioned Rs. 90 lacs in favour of the company in the year 1989. Since then accused persons wilfully neglected a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Birendra Kumar Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2004
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.1. Two cases engage the attention of this Court. One is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar. This is Letters Patent Appeal No. 1154 of 2003 : State of Bihar and Ors. v. Birendra Kumar Singh. The other is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by one Ajay Kumar No. 235 of 2004 : Ajay Kumar alias Ajay Sharma alias Ajay Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar and Ors.. The earlier appeal is by the employer. The subsequent one by the employee.2. The aspects and circumstances of these two cases are no different than those which have engaged the attention of this Court in many earlier decisions. Coincidentally, even the Supreme Court cases are in the context of Bihar.3. There is an endless stream of cases which come to the Patna High Court when an appointment in public service is terminated. On a return being filed by a counter affidavit invariably the defence of the State is that the appointment had been made fraudulently. The learned Judges deciding these cases in t...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner joined the services as Drug Inspector in the year 1973. In accordance with the rules of 1974 he was required to pass the Hindi Noting and Accounts examination within five years of coming into force of the rules, i.e., before 1979. According to the petitioner, despite his best efforts he could not clear the examination, but the increments were given to him regularly since after his joining the services and despite the fact that he did not pass the examination. The petitioner was issued a notice on 7.3.2003 to show cause as to why the increments be not stopped and the amount received under the increments be not recovered from him. The petitioner has now come to this Court, Inter alia, submitting that he made his best efforts to pass the examination but unfortunately could not. It is also submitted by him that after amendment of the rules he made an application to the State Government seeking exemption from passing t...
Tag this Judgment!Abhay Chand Bothara Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. IX for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to Anchal Adhikari, Chhatapur, to issue rent-receipts to the petitioner with respect to the land bearing Khesra No. 324 (old)/ 619 (new), appertaining to Khata No. 341 (old), measuring a total area of 48 decimals.2. This litigation has a chequered history. It relates back to proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with respect to certain areas of lands including the aforesaid land which constituted Harawat Estate in the district of Supaul. There were proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Act regarding the alleged malafide transfer of lands of plot Nos. 326, 322, 324, 325, 318, 329, and 148, of Khata No. 341, of Mauza Chhatapur, by the Harawat Estate in favour of Manick Chand Bothra, father of the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-07-2004
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-bank.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice, contained in annexure 1, issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the creditor, whereby he has been called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 1,12,70,963 within sixty days from the date of the notice and further, indicating that, in default, besides exercising other rights of the bank available under law, the bank is intending to exercise any or all of the powers as provided under Section 13(4) of the Act.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that the matter regarding the said debt is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of the bank and, as such, availing of remedy under the Act by way of notice (annexure 1) and consequently, prosecuting b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »