NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
Niwas Choubey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.
Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board and learned counsel for the State.
2. Even though there are neither factual disputes nor any dispute as to proposition of law still the learned Single Judge relegated the writ petitioner/appellant to avail remedy by way of appeal under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. This is a classic example of : Justice delayed is Justice denied. Justice hurried is justice buried.
3. M/s Sundeep Pipe Chemical Enterprises Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, applied for and was granted an electric connection by the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). An agreement was entered into between the Company and the Board. There were some dues. For recovery of the dues, the Board instituted a certificate proceeding against the writ petitioner/appellant, who was the Managing Director of the Company. A show cause was filed on behalf of petitioner/ap
Rajendra Prasad Keshari versus State of Bihar and others since reported in 1969 PLJR 275
Kanhaiya Lal versus the State of Bihar and others since reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 553
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.