Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Ranchi Bar Association, Ranchi And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 11 February, 1999

Kerala Vyapari Vavasayi Ekopana ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 1 June, 2000

16. As we have noticed, the mere calling of a hartal or the advocating of it as understood in the strict sense, cannot be held to be objectionable especially in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184 and the decision of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Bar Association v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 Pat 169. But the moment it comes out of the concept of hartal strictly so called and seeks to impinge on the rights of others, it ceases to be a hartal in the real sense of the term and really becomes a violent demonstration affecting the rights of others. That facet of it has certainly to be curtailed and can be curtailed by this Court at the instance of others who have equal constitutional rights, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 8 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Binay Shankar Tiwari And Etc. Etc. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 May, 2003

32. In the matter of South Chotanagpur Division of Bihar Motor Transport Federation. Ranchi v. State of Bihar, 1991 BBCJ 390, a Division Bench of this Court has followed the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Excel Wear (AIR 1979 SC 25) (supra). Their Lordships observed that a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on business which includes not to carry on business and such a person cannot be made liable to pay any road tax in terms of the provisions of Taxation Act, 1930. Their Lordships also observed that the Act provides for regulatory measures in imposing taxes for the purposes of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making the road, repairing them and to facilitate movement and regulation of traffic. It was also observed that if a person does not intend to carry on any business in transporting goods or passengers by means of a public service motor vehicle, he cannot be made liable to pay any road tax in terras of the provisions of the said Act. In the said matter, also the circular dated 22-6-1988 issued from the office of the State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna was under challenge. The said circular directed all the District Transport Officers to accept the surrender of the licences granted to them in terms of the provisions of the Taxation Act, 1930 only. The said applications fulfilled the following conditions.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R S Garg - Full Document

Shailesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 3 December, 2003

In Ranchi Bar Association v. State of Bihar, 1999 (1) East Cr C 844 (Pat)(RB) : AIR 1999 Pat 169, a Division Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Kerala High Court referred to above, held that where the supporters of the bundh forced the closure of the Court, interfered with its working and prevented unlawfully the lawyers from attending to their cases, it was a case of Contempt of Court and the supporters of the bundh would be guilty of contempt. Based on this, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the preventing of the petitioner from attending Court and from attending to his work amounts to obstructing the course of justice and that amounts to Criminal Contempt as define in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also submitted that it may even amount to interfering with the due course of a judicial proceeding and on that basis also it would come within the definition of Criminal Contempt. The argument on behalf of petitioner is that on the admitted facts he was prevented from attending the Court and those who are guilty must be held to be guilty of contempt of Court. Respondent No 6 in his show cause has stated that he had not been part of any association of persons obstructing the petitioner and, therefore, he should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court. There is no specific allegation in the Contempt of Court application about the role of respondent No. 6 except the allegation that he had called for the bundh. He has admitted that he was the District Office Bearer of a political party, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. But he has denied that he had given the call for a Ranchi bundh. According to him, on the night of 19.8.2003 his eldest son and another person were murdered by some miscreants and the funeral was held on 20.8.2003 in "ashmasanghat" He remained with the family consoling his family members including the children of his murdered son and his widow. He was wholly involved in consoling the entire family and had also to arrange for the performance of the rites after death. He denied that he had ever called for any bundh on 22.8.2003. No such decision was also taken by the District Committee and if such decision was taken by that Committee he had no knowledge of it. He had no occasion to convene any meeting for taking a decision to call for a bundh in view of the murder of his son. According to him, from the news papers it was revealed that several political parties had called for a bundh for attracting the attention of the administration or the Government, to the deplorable law and order situation in Ranchi resulting in murders, dacoity and other crimes. He denied that the incident referred to was perpetrated by the members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and those persons who were identified and apprehended by the police were the members of other political parties who were interested only in blaming the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha on all possible occasions and for all possible omission and commissions. He submitted that the contempt application is not maintainable. He also submitted that he held the Court in great esteem and he held the petitioner in high esteem and he has also tendered an unqualified apology before this Court if by any reckoning he was found to be guilty of any omission, or commission.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Panchayya vs Mallayya And Another on 27 June, 2000

(emphasis supplied) The legal position, in a matter like this, having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, which have been referred to above, I am unable to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since lawyers are on strike, this Court should proceed to examine the correctness of the impugned order. If a section of the members of the public or lawyers prevent functioning of the Courts, remedy open to the petitioner and others, who believe in Rule of law, administration of justice, majesty of the Courts and orderly society is to prevent such illegal acts being continued, by taking appropriate legal action against such of those persons who indulge in such illegal actions and interfere with the course of justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P V Shetty - Full Document
1