Patna Court February 1995 Judgments
Srikrishnapuri Boring Road Vyapari Sangh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
1. The petitioners herein are the Srikrishnapuri Boring Road Vyapari Sangh and its Secretary, who is aggrieved by the action of the respondents alleging that the respondents have without any warrant or justification demolished and is demolishing large number of structures on the Boring Road, Boring Canal Road and Srikrishnapuri, which were occupied by the members of the petitioner-Sangh who are shopkeepers, traders and businessmen occupying those structures as tenants. They have, therefore, prayed that the respondents be restrained from demolishing any structure, either temporary or permanent, even if those structures have been raised without a sanctioned plan or in violation of a sanctioned plan, unless a proceeding is initiated under the provision of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. The writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation.2. The case of the petitioners is that the Boring Road has a width of 54' (feet), and this is obvious from the fact tha...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.1.1989 passed respectively in C.W.J.C. Nos. 30 of 1982 (R) and 547 of 1983 (R). M/s Chotanagpur Ropeworks moved this Court and challenged the notices dated 21.1.1982 and 15.3.1983 issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Pandra, Ranchi, whereby it was called upon to apply for licence and after obtaining the same, pay surcharge under the provisions of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge quashed the aforesaid notices and held that Jute-rope was not within the purview of the Act and directed the Market Committee to refund the amount realised from the firm.2. In the aforesaid writ applications, it was contended that M/s Chotanagpur Ropeworks, a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, having its office and factory at village-Arra, District Ranchi, purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshedpur Engineering and Machine Manufacturing Company Ltd. and ors. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Both the applications arise out of the same matter and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both cases have challenged the order dated February 1, 1994, passed in Complaint Case No. 1 of 1994 taking cognizance under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against them. 3. The Union of India through the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Jamshedpur, filed a complaint petition before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging, inter alia, that the accused company is a private company and is an assessee within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Two returns of loss were filed by the assessee-company first on December 28, 1989, disclosing total loss of Rs. 91,69,770 and the second revised return was filed on October 19, 1990, showing total loss at Rs. 10,77,040. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at nil. Two additions, the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Chamaria and ors. Vs. Bihar State Housing Board, Through ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Nagendra Rai, J.1. With the consent of the parties this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3 The petitioners have tiled the present writ application for quashing the letter issued by the Manager Estate, Bihar State Housing Board (respondent No.2) fixing Rs. 71, 000/-m interim cost of the flats allotted to the petitioners under the integrated subsidised housing scheme of the Board and asking the petitioners to deposit 20% of the same and thereafter agreement will be executed and possession will be given to them and to pay the remaining amounts in 180 monthly instalments and for a direction to the Housing Board to complete the flats by providing Sanitary fittings etc., and not to add the amount of interest on the cost amount of the flats prior to actual handing over the possession to the petitioners and to pay interest on the earnest money deposited at the time of submitting application and to fix the price of the h...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. The appellants, in the above case, have been convicted by the judgment and order dated 8.6.1990 in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1987 by Shri Uma Shankar, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. Appellant No. 1 Nakul Mahto has been held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment while appellant No. 2 Dwarika Mahto has been held guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case is that on 24.7.1984 the informant Sotan Mahto (P.W.9) was ploughing his field at Village Kaur Tari, Police Station Barkagaon in the district of Hazaribagh along with his son Gulel Mahto and grand-son Ishwar Dayal Mahto, then all on a sudden, the above named two accused appellants along with Charku Mahto another accused who have been acquitted, appeared at the field. Dwarika Mahto and Charku Mahto were armed with lathi w...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Motors Spares and Co. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Dharmpal Sinha, J. 1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions, namely, CWJC No. 4088 of 1994 and CWJC No. 6774 of 1994 have been filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents for the same reliefs and have been heard analogous. In fact, one of the writ petition, that had been filed earlier, due to strike of the employees, could not be listed for admission, and in that situation the second writ petition is said to have been filed. This order will govern both the writ petitions. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 representing Indian Oil Corporation Limited and learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6, on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed. 3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have primarily assailed the order passed by the District Magistrate (vide Annexure-5) cancelling a No Objection Certificate granted to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and also the order dated 2-4-1994 (Annexure-8) passed by the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Nanuman Kahar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Surinder Sarup, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 457, I.P.C. as also under Section 380 I.P.C. by the Court of Sri R.B. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 457 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 380 I.P.C.2. He then filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence aforementioned, which was heard and decided by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court for the aforesaid offences, the learned lower appellate court, modified the sentence under Section 457, I.P.C. by reducing it from three years to one year. Against the said order, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.3. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that between, the night of 15th and 16th June, 1974, at about 11 p.m., while the informant, Jodha Mahto was sleeping in his 'Aangan', he heard some ...
Tag this Judgment!Mostt. Ratna and ors. Vs. Smt. Narayani Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
K. Venkataswami, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in First Appeal No. 76/91 (R), dated 23.4.1991.2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the title Suit No. 38 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa.3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal may now be noted. The appellants-plaintiffs along with plaintiff No.3 (Respondent No.3 herein) filed the said title suit for declaration that the sale deeds No. 2780 and 2781 dated 4.9.1968 were illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein, has not acquired any right, title or interest over the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint.4. The 1st appellant herein is the widow of one Ghasi Kumar Behara, the 2nd appellant is the daughter of the said Ghasi Kumhar Behara and the 3rd respondent herein is the son of the said Ghasi Kumhar Behara. The sale deeds were executed by the 3rd respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangru Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. All the three appeals mentioned above are taken up together for disposal as the first two appeals arise out of the common judgment while the third appeal although arises out of the separate judgment but relates to the same incident.2. Seventeen accused persons including the three appellants of first two appeals mentioned above faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 1985 before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad (Camp at Chas) for the offences charged against them under Sections 396 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code against some of the accused persons.3. The alleged occurrence relates to hair-raising hatred, riot and murder with arson, looting etc., in the wake of the murder of Ex-Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi at New Delhi allegedly by some Sikh persons. There were riots on that issue covering the whole of the country and one such incident occurred in between 9 to 9.30 A.M., on 1.11.1984 at Das...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Singh Vs. the Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Others
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. The complainant has filed this case for the replacement of his Premium Padmini-Deluxe BU Car which the complainant had purchased from the opposite party No. 2 and for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite party. 2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant purchased a Premier Padmini Deluxe BU car from the opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 1,26,609.88 for which Receipt No. 1875 dated 22.6.90 was given to the complainant by the opposite party No. 2 who happens to be the dealer of the car at Jamshedpur. Opposite party No. 1 is the wholeseller of the car. Subsequently the car developed the following defects : 1. The right hand side door was of a different model than that of the car. 2. The body of the car was of a poor workmanship, bad finishing and the assemblies were of poor and cheap quality. 3. The differential was not having oil. 3. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 several times and th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »