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
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!Court : Patna
1. Heard both the parties.The Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) came into effect in the year 1993. The validity of the said Act was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce, reported in : [1996]2SCR184 . By the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein (Amendment) Act, 2001, which came into operation on and from 11th July, 2001, the said act was amended. Subsequent thereto by the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for consumption, Use or Sale Therein (Amendment) Act, 2003, which came into operation on and from 22nd August, 2003, the said Act was further amended. These two amendments were challenged. The challenge so thrown failed before this Court on the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce (supra). The cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar Public Service Commission.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 22.1.2007 at Annexure-1 issued by the Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Bihar. It rejects the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Principal, I.T.I. in pursuance of the Government decision not to grant the benefit of reservation to those in the reserved category from other States in pursuance of a Government decision dated 11.6.1996 vide letter No. 70.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 5469 of 1999 which directed his case to be considered by appropriately taking into consideration his qualification of diploma in view of the provisions of the training manual when the advertisement stipulated as a qualification of a degree only. At this stage, no objection of the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6.In this writ application a prayer has been made by the petitioner to the following effect: (i) An appropriate writ order or direction quashing the settlement of ghats mentioned in para 8 below within the area of operation of the petitioner society, made with the respondent No. 6 be issued(ii) An appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent 1st party to make settlement of the three ghats falling within the area of operation of the petitioner society with the petitioner within a time frame, be issued.Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has firstly submitted that in view of the fact that the impugned settlement with the respondent No. 6 was only for the year 2007-08 which period was to be completed in a month i.e. on 31.3.2008, he no longer intended to assail the order of settlement in favour of res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai and R.S. Garg, JJ.1. The petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondents-authorities not to enforce Notification S.O, No. 154 dated 28-1-1985 issued under proviso to Section 13(1) of the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to sale and purchase of packing materials by it which is covered by Section 13(1) (e) inserted in the Act by Bihar Finance Amendment Act, 1985 with effect from 1-8-1985. Prayer has also been made for quashing the order of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Pafna City, Patna, respondent No. 3, dated 7-4-2003 whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to include in column 13 of the registration certificate the packing materials made out of papers, have been rejected. A copy of the aforesaid Notification and a copy of the order dated 7-4-2003 have been annexed as Annexures-6 and 5 respectively to the writ application.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Shiva Kirti Singh and Shailesh Kumar Sinha, JJ.1. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 31st, August, 2005 passed by learned 7th Additional Sesssions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 456 of 2000 arising out of Meenapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1999, appellant Nand Kishore Singh (Death Reference No. 7 of 2005 and Cr.Appeal No. 622 of 2005), appellant Maheshwar Singh (Cr.Appeal No. 643 of 2005) and appellant Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh (Cr.Appeal No. 763 of 2005) have been convicted for the offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Maheshwar Singh has been further convicted under Section 412 I.P.C. but for that no separate sentence has been awarded to him. Co-accused Ramesh Singh has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 396 and 412 of the I.P.C. By order dated 3-9-2005 appellant Nand Kishore Singh has been awarded death sentence on account of allegation that in course of dacoity he shot and caused death of deceased Madhukant Jha. The other two appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. The UPVC Pipe Manufacturers of this State as well as their Welfare Association are the petitioners. The State and its Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and others are the respondents. The dispute relates to the right and the fight for survival of the small scale UPVC Pipe Manufacturers situated within the State. The ostensible challenge is based on the right of the said industrial unit to get a preference in procurement of their pipes by the State Government to sustain the local industries as per Governmental decisions made in their favour, inter alia, in April/July, 2007 and actions taken pursuant thereto which were apparently given a virtual go-bye by the Department concerned (PHED) within three months resulting in abrupt overturning of the purchase policy and cancellation of tenders which would have inured to the benefit of the petitioners, without disclosure of proper and justifiable reasons, making the decision and the actions thereunder of t...
Tag this Judgment!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!