Patna Court August 1994 Judgments
Vijay Kumar Chaurasia Vs. Shakuntala Devi
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-17-1994
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The defendant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1987 passed in Tide Appeal No. 145 of. 1980 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.7.1980 passed in Title Suit No. 157 of 1978.2. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/- according to the English Calendar in the month of April, 1973. It was agreed that the rent would be payable in the first week of the next following month. The defendant paid rent upto September, 1976 under receipt. The defendant thereafter stopped payment of rent from the month of October, 1976. She is also in bona fide personal need of the suit premises.3. The case of the defendant was that rent of the suit premises was Rs. 30/- only. The plaintiff also agreed to receive the rent at the convenience of the parties and also accepted the rent for 5/6 months at a time, the enhancement of the rent from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 40/- from Apri...
Tag this Judgment!East India Transport Agency Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-16-1994
V. Venkataswami, C.J.1. The petitioner, a transporter, aggrieved by the order seizing the goods and imposing penalty by invoking Sections 31(2-a), 2(b) and (3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has filed this writ petition.2. While challenging the legality of the Order, learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments challenging the vires of Section 31, in particular, 31(2-a) of the Act.3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, we find that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary for us to pronounce upon the vires of the section challenged. Admittedly, the show cause notice which preceded the order of seizure of goods and imposition of penalty is not in confirmity with the requirement of Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. Likewise, the orders seizing the goods and imposing penalty are not in conformity with Section 31(2-b) and (3) of the Act. It is common ground that the impugned Orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Marwari Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-05-1994
Venkataswami, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, has referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the following two questions, for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that 150 bags of sugar purchased by Shri B. N. Jain was, in fact, purchased by the assessee and to add Rs. 52,068 as income from other sources and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal has been vitiated on account of taking irrelevant and inadmissible matters under consideration and ignoring the relevant materials and the findings are perverse ?' 2. The facts leading to the above reference are the following : The petitioner/assessee, a registered firm, was deriving income from grocery business. There was a search of the godown of the assessee by the B. D. O., Dehri-on-Sone, on May 3, 1972. Du...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S.K. Lahiri
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
B.P. Singh, J.1. Pursuant to the order of this court requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case, referring two questions of law to this court for its opinion, under Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following questions have been referred to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of rectification under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act made by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty charging interest of Rs. 16,385 at the rate of six per cent. for late filing of the return under Section 53(3) of the Estate Duty Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mistake of not charging interest at the time of assessment was an error apparent from the record and whether the reasoning given by the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Assistant Controller is perverse and contrary to facts and law ?' 2. The facts of the case, not in dispute, are that Sri ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›