Patna Court April 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sarju Thakur Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Surju Thakur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (wrongly styled as L.P.A.), is against the order and judgment dated December 11, 1986, of the learned single judge, whereby he dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The petitioner-appellant filed a suit for recovery of certain money from Thakur Ram Ganga Prasad Private Limited, a company registered under the Act. That suit was decreed on May 4, 1976. The appellant started execution proceedings against the company by filing an execution case, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 25 of 1976. In pursuance of the execution proceeding the property of the company was sold and was purchased by the appellant. The proclamation of sale was made on April 3, 1978, in favour of the appellant and confirmed on July 6,1978. Meanwhile, it appears that a petition was filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act for winding ...
Dr. (Mrs.) Satyabhama Thakur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following two questions of law for its opinion : ' (i) Whether, a revised return can be filed when a return has been filed under Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, whether the assessment made on the basis of the return filed by the assessee on March 21, 1978, was a valid assessment ?' 2. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee filed her return of income on November 4, 1975, under Section 139(4) of the Act. She filed a revised return of income on March 21, 1978. Assessment was completed cm March 9, 1979, on the revised return of income. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment as invalid and directed the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment de novo. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the only contention raised ...
Madhu Sudan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
N. Pandey, J.1. The petitioner is the Executive President of New Swadeshi Sugar Mills Limited. By means of this writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made on his behalf to quash the entire proceeding arising out of Certificate Case No. 4/92-93 pending in the Court of District Certificate' Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah as also the notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (in short 'the Act') and the order passed under Section 9 of the Act dated 14.6.1995, contained in Annexure 6 whereby and whereunder while rejecting objection, the District Certificate Officer directed the petitioner to deposit the certificate dues.2. Undisputedly, purchase or distribution of sugarcane for use of sugar factories and Khandsari sugar manufacturing units in the State of Bihar are being regulated as per different provisions of Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be ref...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Annapurna Electric Co.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
1. The same question arising in the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 has come up for the opinion of this court on a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue giving rise to these three cases constituting this batch. 2. The question of law which has come to this court for its opinion is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that Shree Annapurna Electric Co. and Shree Annapurna Udyog were separate firms and in excluding the income of Shree Annapurna Udyog which had been included in the income of Shree Annapurna Electric Co. ?' 3. Shree Annapurna Electric Company, Giridih ('the electric company', for short), is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, namely, Shri Uma Shankar Chhaperia and Shri Hari Shankar Chhaperia, having equal shares in the firm. In the course of assessment of this firm, the Assessing Officer discovered that th...
Bhuneshwar Mahto Vs. Tusia Devi
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-14-1996
Loknath Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 20.12.1989 passed in C No.4429/88 (T.R. No.1637/89) through which the opposite party was allowed monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 250/- under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of the applicant and also order dated 11.10.1991 passed by 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No. 5/91. 2. The fact, in short, giving rise to this application is that opposite party, Tusia Devi, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance allowance as against the petitioner claiming him to be her husband. In the court below somehow or the other, the petitioner could not appear and as there was refusal of the notice by the petitioner according to the trial court, so the maintenance proceeding was heard ex parte and vide order dated 20.12.1989 learned Judicial Magistrate awarded Rs. 25...
Rajiv Kumar Alias Pappu Vs. Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This Revision Petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri Bahma Nand Prasad, Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1992 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-Opposite parties under Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act.2. Plaintiff-Opposite Parties 1 to 7 filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises described in Scheduled-A of the plaint which is nothing but a shop room measuring about 11 '6'/9 '6' situated within the town of Chakradharpur having its Ward No. I and Holding No. 1/109. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and one Ganga Singh, O.P. No. 8 was added as plaintiff No. 8. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners of the two house premises comprised within the Municipal Holding No. 1/109 and 1/110 within the .Ward No. 1 of Chakradharpur Municipality. House No. 1/110 is comprised of 4 bed rooms, 2 in the ground floor and 2 in the first floor besides courtyard, Varandha, latrine etc. This portio...
Mohan Rajak and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
N. Pandey, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the orders, dated 19.9.1985 and 17.7.1985, contained in Annexures-1 and 1/A, whereby service of the petitioners was terminated.2. It appears, previously a bench of this Court had dismissed this writ application on 21.1.1986 in limine. Thereafter the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 1985. The order of this Court was set-aside with a direction to admit the writ application for hearing the parties. At the same time the respondent-authorities were also directed to re-instate the petitioners with effect from 1st August, 1986, subject to the final result of this writ petition. In view of the aforesaid order petitioners have been admittedly continuing in service.3. It appears from the facts of this case that with a view to make appointments, in the month of April, 1982 advertisement was made by the District Employment Officer in daily newspapers including Indian Nation to fill up the pos...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Sudha Devi Khaitan
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Tax Cases Nos. 2 and 3 of 1983 relate to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively. They have come to this court on reference made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In both cases an identical question arises from the same set of facts and law. These two cases, therefore, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. On September 9, 1975, notices under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act were issued to the assessee for the two assessment years. She filed her returns for the two years on September 17, 1975. The question as to whether the returns were filed in response to the notices has been a matter of some controversy ; according to the assessee she did not receive the notices and the returns were filed by her on her own.3. In the returns filed she declared wealth valued at Rs. 1,34,228 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 1,46,142 for the assessment year 1971-72.4. Soon thereafter the Voluntary Disclosure o...
Debanand Chaurasia Vs. Ram Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant of Title (Eviction) Suit No. 2 of 1992 which was decreed against him on ground of bonafide necessity on 17.6.1995. then appeal was preferred by the defendant being title Appeal No. 38 of 1995 and the same has also been dismissed against the defendant by judgment and decree dated 13.12.1995.2. The eviction suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents on three grounds: namely (1) unauthorised construction being made by the defendant; (2) on ground of defaulter and (3) on the ground of bonafide necessity of plaintiff No. 1. The Original court dismissed the ground of unauthorised construction and defaulter but decreed the suit on ground of bonafide necessity. The appellate court maintained the ejectment decree not only on the ground of bonafide necessity but also on ground of defaulter a it though, there is no Cross Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondent.3. Now, the law is clear that even if some finding is against the resp...
Ganesh Prasad Gupta Vs. Parwati Devi and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
P.K. Deb, J.1. This civil revision has been filed against the order dated 23.5.1995 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-M.A.C.T. in M.J.C. Case Nos. 34 and 35 of 1987, by which the prayer made by the appellant-petitioner was rejected by the learned court below regarding imposing of the interim award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the insurance company, although, according to the petitioner, the vehicle in question was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bilaspur (M.P.).2. It is the case of the appellant that the insurance company had issued certificate, number of which was given by the petitioner, but the same was missing and the certificate which was filed was found to be illegible and thus, the learned court below rejected the prayer that the amount of interim award can be indemnified by the insurance company.3. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. S.N. Lal that as the certificate No. was given by him, the burden remains with the insura...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »