Patna Court April 1995 Judgments
Ravinash Kumar Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. The complainant has filed this case alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party causing financial loss, physical harassment and mental anguish to him. 2. The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant may be briefly stated. The Unit Trust of India the opposite party floated a scheme for investment known as MISG-(5) 1985, the dividend on which was payable every month sent to the investors by means of dividend warrants. The complainant invested a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 in the said scheme on 11.9.85 and opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 issued Unit Certificate No. 85220214 for 100 units. According to this scheme the investment was for a period of five years, the due date of maturity of which was the last day of October, 1990. The complainant was given the option either to receive the entire maturity proceeds or to re-invest the same. The opposite party declared that on maturity the complainant was entitled to get the principal amo...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Manager, Uco Bank Vs. Ram Govind Agrawal
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 5th August, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1991 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant has a Current Account No. 1551, Folio No. 149 in the UCO Bank at Ranchi the opposite party. The complainant is a IncomeTax Assessee and a resident of District Dhanbad. He received a refund order/voucher for Rs. 5,640/- from the Income-tax Department in respect of excess payment made by him towards his income tax. He deposited the refund voucher with the UCO Bank-the opposite party at Ranchi on 17.7.84 to be credited in his current account after being collected from the State Bank of India, Ranchi. But even after several reminders made by the complainant, no reply was received nor the amount under said refund vocuch...
Tag this Judgment!Telecom District Man Acer, Patna Vs. Ramdhyan Prasad
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 28th September, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Case No. 100 of 89 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent there was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The case of complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant had a telephone, bearing No. 21161 which was at his residence at North Mandiri, Patan. This was his personal telephone. But as the complainant was in Government service the bills used to be paid by the Governments Revenue Department. The complainant changed his residence to 78, Alokpuri Colony, Khajapura, Patna and therefore on 16.7.88 he applied to the opposite party in writing for transfer of his telephone to his new residence and the petitioner was informed that advice was sent to the S.D.O. Telephones, West Patna by Advice Note dated 21.7.88 and the shifting would be done soon. The complainant thereafter sent serval reminders to the telephone authori...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Koeri and anr. Vs. Mangaru Koeri @ Mangru Mahto and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-15-1995
Narayan Roy, J.1. This letters Patent Appeal is directed against he judgment and decree dated 1.10.1991, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 113 of 1986 (R), whereby the appeal filed by the defendants has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed holding that there had already been a partition and as such the suit for partition instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants was not maintainable.2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed Partition Suit No. 65/84/27/85 praying for partition of their half share in the suit properties slating therein, inter alia, that the parties were the descendants of one Gendo Koeri, who had two sons, namely, Lalit Koeri and Ramchander Koeri. The defendants are the descendants from the Branch of Lalit Koeri, whereas the plaintiffs are from the Branch of Ramchander, Koeri, Lalit Koeri had three sons, namely, Puran Koeri (who died issueless), Bhikhwa Koeri and Jugal Koeri, whereas Ramchander Koeri had only one son, namely, Kehri Koeri,...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-13-1995
B.L. Yadav, A.C.J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in respect of the provision of law under which these Appeals have been filed.2. These, analogous Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the same judgment dated 15.2.1995 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court. The Judgment was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1192/93 (R) Ram Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 1193/93 (R) Sita Ram Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. These appeals involve similar moot questions, including as to whether principles of natural justice have been violated, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. The petitioners were initially appointed as the Silt Analyst and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officers by an order of the Chief Engineer, but later on it was transpired that the Chief Engineer had no authority to pass an order of promotion, rather some other appropriate authority was competent to pass t...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the enquiry report contained in Annexure-5 submitted by Sri P. K. Jha, Superintendent of Divisional Jail, Katihar, the order passed by the disciplinary authority contained in Annexure-8, whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service, and the appellate order contained in Annexure-10 affirming the aforesaid order.3. In my view, the facts of the enquiry are so telling that I have no option but to allow this writ application which would be apparent from the facts stated hereunder.4. According to learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner the enquiry report is vitiated on the ground stated hereunder.5. Firstly, it has been submitted that upon receipt of the charge-sheet the petitioner wanted certain papers which were necessary for filing show cause but the same was denied to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. It is said that out of the papers required by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchi Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice as contained in annexure-7 to the writ application, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order as contained in annexure-7 to the writ application is without jurisdiction and it cannot be acted upon, inasmuch as in the absence of an assessment made under Section 143(1)(a) or Section 143(3) of the Act, there cannot be any question of any income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment. It is further submitted that before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not recorded reasons for doing so. 4. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act i...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
N. Pandey, J.1. Petitioners are the members of the Bihar Engineering Service (Class-1) in the Public Works Department (Road Construction), State of Bihar. By means of these writ-applications, they have challenged the validity of the decision of the State Government dated 21st March, 1991 as contained in Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 7009 of 1991, whereby, the respondent-authorities were directed to continue Roster System for filling up the posts through promotion, even the representations of the candidates, belonging to reserved category, i.e. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, had reached the legally permissible limit of 24% of the strength of the particular cadre.The further prayer is that in case, it is found that promotions against the concerned posts were given beyond the permissible limit, the respondent-authorities be directed to treat such number of posts vacant and take steps for promotion in terms of Rules 17 and 24 of Bihar Engineering Service Class 1 Rules, 1939 (in short...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Ganguly @ Vaskar Ganguly and anr. Vs. Sujit Kumar Gupta
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
B.L. Yadav, A.C.J.1. This is a defendants' Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause X (ten) of the Patna High Court Rules in a suit filed by plaintiff-respondent, a building contractor, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 54, 414.77 paise plus interest @ 11% per annum from the defendants-appellants.2. The factual matrix of the case is that on the request of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiff-respondent completed a work of repairs and reconstruction of Ratan Talkies under the supervision of Mr. M.D. Birnawe (Architect). There was an agreement that the work was to be done regarding drawing and designing and plan supplied by the defendants. The plaintiff, a contractor of repute has his business in the town of Ranchi. Even after completion of the work the amount was not paid to the plaintiff, hence the suit aforesaid giving rise to present Appeal was filed.3. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the appellants, who denied the averments in the plaint and pleaded that it was a lump...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka and Company Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
R.N. Sahay, J.1. The petitioner is a registered firm having its place of business at L-7/2, Bistupur Bazar, P.S.Bistupur in the town of Jamshedpur. By this Criminal writ application the petitioner challenges the authority and jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle Jamshedpur) to seize the items described in Annexure-2, in exercise of his power under Section 31(5)(a) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (in short the Finance Act) and the order dated 5.10.94 (Annexure-6) passed under Section 33(5)(b) of the Act whereby a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,15,893.45 has been imposed on the firm. The circumstances leading to the present proceeding may be stated in brief. The petitioner firm has separate place of business, one at Bistupur and other at Parsudih Market Yard. Both the places are registered under the Finance Act. The Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax has permitted the firm to keep the Accounts jointly.2. On 26.9.94, third respondent inspecte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »