Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: patna Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.021 seconds)

Mar 30 1992 (HC)

Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Agricultural P ...

Court : Patna

Decided on : Mar-30-1992

..... in the interest of the agriculturists and licensees in accordance with the provisions of this act and the bye-laws made thereunder;(iv) to act in the prescribed manner as mediator, arbitrator or surveyor in all matters of differences, disputes, claims, etc., between licensees inter se or between them and persons making use of the market as sellers of agricultural produce .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1992 (HC)

Jai Shankar Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jan-16-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Pat22; 1992(40)BLJR309

1. this writ petition was moved praying for an appropriate writ order in the nature of qua warranto for "ousting respondent no. 6 from the office of the member of bihar public service commission" (hereinafter referred to as "the commission") on the allegation that he has illegally usurped the same and that he is not entitled to continue.2. the petitioner claims to be a practising advocate of this court. the respondents in this petition are state of bihar (respondent no. 1), the secretary, personnel and administrative reforms department (respondent no. 2), the joint secretary, personnel and administrative reforms department (respondent no. 3), the commission through its secretary (respondent no. 4), the chairman of the commission (respondent no. 5), dr. shiv jatan thakur, associate professor, english department, b. n. college, patna, a member of the commission (respondent no. 6) and the union of india (respondent no. 7),3. we may point out that surprisingly enough mr. katriar, learned advocate, made it clear at the very out set, that he has been instructed to appear for respondent nos. 4 and 5, i.e. the commission and its chairman only, but not on behalf of respondent no. 6 who was admittedly appointed as a members of the commission. accordingly, dr. thakur, who is admittedly a blind person, has appeared before us in person to defend himself.4. the admitted fact before us is that dr. thakur (respondent no. 6 was appointed as a member of the commission on 4th of march, 1991. he .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //