Patna Court July 1996 Judgments
Krishna Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Raj NaraIn Thakur and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Dharmpal Sinha, J.1. In this revision petition the petitioners, who had obtained a mortgaged decree in Title Suit No. 35 of 1950 and had deposited the mortgaged debt, are aggrieved by an order dated 13.8.1992 passed by Sri R.b. Singh, 4th Sub-ordinate Judge, Arrah in a proceeding for final decree in that title suit, whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge has held, on a petition filed by the Judgment-debtors-opposite parties, that the final decree cannot be prepared.2. The main reason given by the learned court below for taking the view is that since the mortgaged property had vested in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act, the final decree even if prepared will be inexecutable and infructuous. The learned court below has cited two decisions reported in : [1976]2SCR193 Vidya Sugar v. Smt. Sudesh Kumari and Ors. and in A.I.R. 1969 SC 971 Shivashankar Prasad Sah and Ors. v. Baikunth Nath Singh in support of the view which it has taken.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and Others Vs. Jagadish Prasad Singh
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
B.N. Sinha, President 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 5.5.93 passed by the District Forum, Arah disposing of Complaint Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 93 by this common order. The appellants here were the opposite party and the respondents here were the complainants in the two respective cases before the District Forum. 2. The memo of appeal has been presented before this Commission on 6.8.93 i.e.; much after the expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order and therefore an application under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules has been filed by the appellants stating the facts on which the appellants rely to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the memo of appeal within the period specified u/Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). It has been mentioned that the impugned order was forwarded to the Block Development Officer (appellant No. 3) by Memo No. 8/93 dated 10.5.93 ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kanak Paul and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-27-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.1.96 passed by the learned Single Judge (See the decision reported in (1996) 1 BLJR 473 (RB), whereby he has reduced the compensation' awarded to the Respondents from Rs. 3,84,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000.2. Against that order, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. Along with this appeal an application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal is barred by 6 days. The ground taken is procedural delay is office. Be that as it may, we have gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and heard learned Counsel for the parties to some extent. The accident took place on 23.10.92 in which Ambuj Chandra Paul, an employee of Fertilizer Corporation of India, Sindri died where he was senior Operator in Nitric Acid plant. He was drawing a salary of about Rs. 5,000/- per month and his home-take salary was about Rs. 4,000/- per month. He left behind him his widow, four daughters and one son. T...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. North Tetulmari Colliery Comp
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. These two civil revision applications have been referred to Division Bench for decision as to whether the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 23(1) of (The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. As the point of reference is very limited, we need not go into the facts of the case in detail. Suffice is to say that the petitioners of both the cases filed claim cases against the ex-owners opposite parties under Section 23 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Payments. After hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim of the petitioner of civil revision No. 104/92 (R) to some extent with interest. Against the said order the opposite party filed Misc. Appeal No. 159/80 under the provisions of the Act. As the entire claim of the petitioner of C.R. No. 225/92 (R) was disallowed by the learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Satyabati Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The order dated 25th of October, 1980 passed by the Deputy Collector, Khunti in Case No. 333/79-80-TR No. 71/7980 in under challenge in the present case. By this impugned order the respondent-Deputy Collector, Khunti has allowed the petition, which was filed by the Respondent No. 7 under Section 7-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'CRT. Act') and Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969. The same has been allowed in part and the petitioner has been ordered to restore the possession of 0.66 acres of land from the disputed plot in favour of Respondent No. 7. The appellate order dated 15th of July, 1985 passed by the respondent-Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 57/ (R)-15/80-81 and the revisional order passed by the respondent-Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 146/85 are also under challenge, having confirmed the original order.2. The land in question, which was subject-matter of petition under...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Bhartiya Ispat Udyog Private Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal has been tiled by the defendant-appellants State of Bihar challenging the impugned order passed by the subordinate Judge I, Patna, setting aside an award of the arbitrator on the concession made by the counsel of the parties and referring lite dispute again for fresh arbitration.2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant State of Bihar published notices inviting tenders for supply of different types of 3100 M.T. of steel rods in the Public Works Department vide notice bearing No. 2952 (E) dated 1.10.1980. In response to the said notice, various tenderers, including the respondent, submitted their tenders and the tender of the respondent being the lowest was accepted and the supply order was issued to it vide Engineer-in-Chief-cum Special Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Bihar, letter No. 549 (E) dated 21.2.1981. Before the respondent could resume the supply, it raised a grievance for enhancement of rates which dispute, however, w...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumar Keshri Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the prosecution against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The complaint against the petitioner pertains to offences for the assessment year 1988-89 and was filed in January, 1993. On the same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioner requiring him to appear in the court. The complainant is the Income-tax Officer and was himself the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner was the assessee under the Act and derived income from manufacturing steel boxes, trunks, tools, etc., and that he filed his return of income for the assessment year 1988-89 on April 19, 1990, showing an income of Rs. 16,280. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 1,55,700. The complainant then st...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumar Keshri Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
D. P. WADHWA, C.J. :This petition under s. 482 of the Cr.PC has been filed seeking quashing of the prosecution against the petitioner for the offences under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").2. The complaint against the petitioner pertains to offences for the asst. yr. 1988-89 and was filed in January, 1993. On the same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioner requiring him to appear in the Court. The complainant is the ITO and was himself the AO of the petitioner. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner was the assessee under the Act and derived income from manufacturing steel boxes, trunks, tools, etc., and that he filed his return of income for the asst. yr. 1988-89 on 19th April, 1990, showing an income of Rs. 16,280. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 1,55,700. The complainant then stated that during the assessment proceeding it was found that the book...
Tag this Judgment!Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
S.N. Mishra, J.1. Having regard to the order that I propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary to go into the details of facts of the case suffice it to say that the appellant, namely, Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. has filed its claim against the Eastern Railway administration on the ground that out of 120 bales 76 bales delivered to the appellant were not in a fit condition for sugar bagging. Similarly, out of 45 bales, 12 were delivered in were and damaged condition. Besides, it is said that 208 bales of 'A' Twill gunny bags were lying in a damaged condition, 88 lying at Riga Rly. Station and 120 in their godown. In sum and substance, the appellant filed its claim for recovery of Rs. 1, 67, 175/-with interest thereon being the price of gunny bags found damaged allegedly due to negligence on the part of the respondents, for which an application under Section 73 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 has been filed, as stated above. It appears that the claim of the appellant has been rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Kumar Tibrawal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th of September, 1987, as contained in Annexure-3, by which the Jamabandi of the petitioner has been cancelled. He has also challenged the consequential order dated 14th of October, 1987, as contained in Annexure-4.2. The counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out from the pleading made by the petitioner that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and thereby jamabandi was rightly made in favour of the petitioner.3. It will be evident from the decision of this Court in the case of Sitaram Chonhey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors reported in 1993 (2) BLJR 942 : 1993 (2) PLJR page 255 that creation of jamabandi or cancellation of such jamabandi, neither creates any right and title in favour of a person nor it takes away the right and title in favour of a person, if any, over a piece of land. The Court held as follows:.25. By reason of an entry in Register II, a person merely becomes entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »