Patna Court December 2009 Judgments

In Re: Jai Shree Udyog P. Ltd. (In Liquidation)

Court: Patna

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas195(Patna)

Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. A report has been filed being O. L. R. No. 33 of 2009 dated November 20, 2009 at flag-8 by the official liquidator stating that the company (in liquidation) ceased to carry on business in 1982 and assets were disposed of in the year 1995-96 to pay the liabilities of the banks and financial institutions and at present there does not appear to be any liability either of the banks or the financial institutions. This fact is also borne out from the statement of affairs filed by the ex-director under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. It is also pointed out that from the examination of the statement of affairs dated March 16, 2009, it appears that the company does not possess any assets and properties in the shape of balance at bank, cash in hand, marketable securities, bills receivables, trade debtors, loan and advances, unpaid calls, stock in trade, work in progress, freehold property land and buildings, leasehold properties, plant and machinery, furniture,...

Asha Kumar W/O Dilip Kumar Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent No. 8 as also counsel for the State.2. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:That this application is being filed for a direction to the respondents to grant nomination letter to the petitioner for the post of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre Babhain Centre code 90 situated within bakhari Block of Begusrai District with all consequential monetary benefit.3. With respect to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actions on the part of official respondents by denying appointment of the petitioner and selection and appointment of respondent No. 8 are bad because the case of the petitioner was itself wrongly considered and rejected by the Gram Sabha on the solitary ground that the father-in-law of the petitioner was working as home Guard. He would in this regard refer to the proceedings of a meeting dated 3rd and 4th May 2000 of all the Child D...

Sriniwas Chandra Tewary S/O Sri Bharat Prasad Tewary Vs. the State of ...

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of departmental proceedings against him and the consequent memo of charge dated 7.9.2009.3. CWJC No. 7192 of 2005 was filed as a Public Interest Litigation against the petitioner, District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Education Officer making allegations of alleged defalcation. Not satisfied with the contention of the PIL petitioner, the application was simplicitor disposed on 12.7.2005 with liberty to bring necessary materials to the attention of the Secretary of the Department, who may look into the matter. On 22.5.2006 the Director (Administration)-cum-Joint Secretary wrote to the PIL petitioner that he has failed to furnish any materials and, therefore, the matter was being closed.4. The PIL petitioner had earlier petitioned on 25.8.2005, in pursuance of which a departmental proceedings was sought to be initiated on 1.4.2006 by ap...

Sabuna Petroleum Through Its Proprietor Murlidhar Pandey Son of Dhuran ...

Court: Patna

Ajay Kumar Tipathi, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was a dealer of a retail outlet of the respondent M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the IOC) whose dealership has been terminated vide order dated 31.3.2008, which is Annexure-12 to the writ application. An appeal filed before the appellate authority challenging Annexure-12 has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 4.7.2008 which is Annexure-13 to the writ application. Both the orders, therefore, are under challenge.3. Initially petitioner was awarded a retail outlet after due selection by the erstwhile IBP Company. The said IBP Company subsequently came to be merged with the M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited or IOC. Petitioner was dealing with motor spirit, high speed diesel and extra premium diesel.4. To regulate the working of such dealers, Companies have been issuing Marketing Discipline Guidelines which every retail outlet is to follow. This is to ensu...

Hari Narayan Sinha Son of Late Madan Singh Vs. the State of Bihar Thro ...

Court: Patna

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. An order passed by the Specified Authority under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act dated 28.9.2007, Annexure-8 to the writ application, is subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of the order the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (Hereinafter to be referred to as the BSFC) has rejected the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner in the exercise which was being carried out by the Specified Authority under Section 32G of the SFC Act.3. Some basic facts are noted based on the pleadings of the parties. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the BICICO) and BSFC in consortium had provided term loan of Rs. 46 and 26 lacs respectively to one M/s Bala Paper Mills (P) Ltd. The unit was to manufacture craft paper. Against the loan amount a joint equitable mortgage and other required legal documents were executed by the ...

Rameshwar Prasad NaraIn Singh S/O Late Mangleshwar Prasad NaraIn Singh ...

Court: Patna

ORDERMandhata Singh, J.1. Heard both the parties.2. Legality, correctness and propriety order dated 06.02.2002 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in G.R. No. 2355 of 1998 whereby petitioners' application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge is rejected.3. Prosecution case in brief is to the effect that there was negotiation for the marriage of informant's niece with petitioner No. 2, for which some dowry was demanded, informant's briefcase with cash was taken away and he was assaulted also.4. Now, submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that all five persons were made accused in the case including brother-in-law, his father and sister of petitioner No. 2 with specific allegation. According to the learned Counsel, every negotiation was there on behalf of brother-in-law and his father namely Ram Babu, Radhe Shyam Thakur respectively. Demand, if any, is made on their behalf only. Further, when some differences cropped up assault was also caused on th...

Chandra Kumar Das S/O Late Sukhdeo Das Vs. the State of Bihar Through ...

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the State of Bihar and for the State of Jharkhand as also for Bihar Public Service Commission.2. The petitioner while posted as an Executive Engineer in the State of Jharkhand was suspended on 27.8.2002 with regard to certain alleged irregularities in the construction and payments of what is known as 'Kodai Bak Bandh'. On 5.9.2002 he was given a charge sheet. The departmental enquiry resulted in a finding of guilt dated 11.11.2003. He was given a 2nd show cause notice to which he replied also. While the matter was pending consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar, his services now stood allocated from the erstwhile State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar. On 31.5.2007 his records were forwarded to the State of Bihar with the recommendation of the State of Jharkhand that it had opined to dismiss him from the service and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. The pet...

Shital Pd. Choudhary Son of Surya Nath Prasad Choudhary Vs. Smt. Usha ...

Court: Patna

ORDERSudhir Kumar Katriar and Kishore K. Mandal, JJ.1. This batch of 14 writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 7.8.91, passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioner. The same arise out of proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In all the writ petitions, the purchasers are the petitioners, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the same persons seeking pre-emption with respect to the land in question, and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the vendors. CWJC No. 8888 of 1991 and CWJC No. 8889 of 1991 are at the instance of the same person, being the purchaser, and seek to dispel the right of pre-emption hitherto allowed by the consistent orders of the authorities below. We shall however draw the basic facts from CWJC No. 8888 of 1991, except by specific reference to another proceeding. It is relevant to state here that respondent No. 1 (R...