Court : Patna
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. The common question which arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether the substances known as Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for short, L.S.H.S.) and Furnace Oil (for short, F.O.) use in the petitioner's fertilizer plant at Sindri qualifies for total exemption from payment of excise duty, as 'Feed stock' used in the manufacture of fertilizer in the petitioner's plant in terms of exemption notification No. 147 of 1974 dated 30.10.1974.2. In CWJC Nos. 4888 and 4901 of 1987, it has been additionally con-tended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals which were instituted in the purported exercise of power of review under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as amended), since under the amended Section 36, amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, which came into force on 21.08.1980, the provision vesting power in the Central Government to review the decision of the Board, stood repealed.3. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Whether in the case of a Company, one of the Company's Directors alone can be recognised as the Occupier of the factory owned by it in terms of the amended Section 2(n) of the Factories Act or is it still open to a company to designate (by completely transferring to him the ultimate control of the factory) any of its employees, other than a Director as the Occupier of the factory? This is the question raised in these two writ petitions filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation (Petitioner No. 1) and one of its employees posted as the Senior Depot Manager, Namkum Depot (Petitioner No. 2). 2. On September 26, 1996, the judgment in this case was reserved after it was heard on three days. In course of hearing Mr. Arijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, brought to our notice a number of decisions of the different High Courts on this point. He fairly cited not only the decisions (of the High Courts of Bombay, Orissa, Karnataka, Calcutta,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The order taking cognizance dated December 8, 1995 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been impugned by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. One Sachita Nand Singh, opposite party No. 2, being Factory Inspector of Ranchi Anchal No. 1. filed a complaint on July 5, 1995 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. showing the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 as the members of the Board of Directors and petitioner No. 10 as Manager of the Factory, Foundry Forge Plant of H.E.G. Ltd. Ranehi. It is alleged that though the Bihar Government issued a notification dated February 13, 1989 to the effect that 'occupier' of the Foundry Forge Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plant') should employ 5 qualified Safety Officers and even this Court by its order dated February 23, 1995 passed in CWCJ No. 8387/1994 (R) directed the Chief Inspector of Factories to take steps for appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S. Nayer Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for the sake of brevity) and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, Sri Sri 108 Narsingh Bhagwan Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust' for the sake of brevity).2. The petitioner was sole plaintiff of Title Suit No. 244 of 1987 which he had filed for declaration of his title over the suit property, which opposite parties claim to be the property of the Trust governed by the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). In the said suit the Trust (opposite party No. 2) and the Board (opposite party No. 1) were impleaded as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively, but they after appearing in the suit on 13.3.1989 through their counsel, did not appear thereafter nor contested the same. In the said circumstances the plaintiff filed a petition on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1586 of 2011 (3) dt.24-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1586 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Manish Kumar @ Ramesh Singh @ Mukhiya @ Ramesh Yadav S/O Sri Birendra Singh Resident Of - Govind Dih, Police Station- Piro In The District Of Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH24. 01-2012 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is for grant of bail to the petitioner under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000. Earlie...
Tag this Judgment!