Patna Court September 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.
Anshuman Prasad Vs. L.i.C. of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
N. Pandey, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against an order dated 27.11.1986 in Title Suit No. 216 of 1984 whereby the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Patna, held that the suit in question was not maintainable at Patna. Therefore, the plaint be returned for filing the same before a competent court having jurisdiction to try this suit.2. There is no dispute that at the time when the cause of action for the suit arose, the plaintiff was transferred from Patna to Calcutta under for the orders, of the Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India and joined at the Zonal Office, Calcutta on 24.1.1983. But after having filed a petition for leave, due to certain urgent work, he left Calcutta for home. Subsequently, the Zonal Manager, although treated the petitioner's absence as unauthorised, directed him to join on 7.2.1983. But later on considering the show cause of the petitioner, under the orders of the Managing Director, he was removed from service from 3.9.2983. Since the order ...
indu Dhari Singh Vs. Dr. Rita Singh and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The order dated 26.6.96 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Matrimonial Suit No. 73/94 has been impugned by the husband-petitioner before this Court. In the said Matrimonial suit, a decree for dissolution of marriage has been claimed by the petitioner for the grounds mentioned in the application under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. After being noticed, the opposite party-wife, in stead of filing a written statement countering the claim of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs. 2, 00000.00 as litigation expenses and a total sum of Rs. 11, 000/- per month as pendente lite for education and other expenses for her two sons namely. Shakti and Subhas as well as her own maintenance.3. After hearing the parties, the learned court below has directed the petitioner to pay litigation exp...
Sudhu Bhogta Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
N.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1990 against the appellant on 4.3.1994 by which he convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life thereunder.2. The prosecution case, in short, as mentioned in the Fard Beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Ram Chandra Bhogta (since deceased) is that on 3.1.1990 at about 8.00 a.m., when the informant Ram Chandra Bhogta was cutting soil in the field adjacent to the 'Bari' of Dashrath Bhogta (deceased), he saw the appellant going with an axe in his hand in the Bari of Dashrath Bhogta, where he was engaged in repairing the fencing. The further case of the prosecution is that this appellant gave an axe blow on the head of Dashrath Bhogta, as a result of Which he fell down on the ground and that the informant and Aghnu Bhogta (not examined) rushed there and ...
Kuleshwar Singh and anr. Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. As in both the writ applications the order impugned is the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.2. The present writ applications one directed against the order dated 3.2.84 passed by the Joint Director in the purported exercise of revisional power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby and thereunder he has set aside the order passed by the appellate authority namely, the Dy. Director Consolidation, Rohtas dated 15.7.87 (annexure-4 and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, contained in annexure-2and3.3. In short the relevant facts are that the disputed land belonged to Mostt. Dhanwant Kuer, widow of late Sheo Prasad Singh, who died less in the year 1975. The petitioners and the private respondents are of late Shiv Pd. Singh, husband of aforesaid Dhanwanti kuer. According to the case of the...
Gajendra NaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, referred to this court the following questions of law for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 for its opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : '1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that a Government servant, having taken house building loan from the Government, cannot provide the same as loan to his Hindu undivided family for construction of his family house is legal and valid 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee is 50 per cent. co-owner of the house with his Hindu undivided family merely because the house building loan taken by him from the Government was also utilised in the construction of the Hindu undivided family house, even though it was provided to the Hindu undivided family as loan, is legal and valid 3. If the answer to question No. 2 be in the negative whether the order of the Tribunal directing assessment...
Baidyanath Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Patna University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In this writ petition, the main question arises as to whether the non-teaching employees of Universities of State of Bihar, including Patna University, are entitled for time-bound promotion or not as stipulated with respect to similarly situated Government of Bihar's employees.2. The writ petition was originally filed by the two petitioners for arrears of salary, in the revised scale of pay in view of second time bound promotion already granted in their favour. Further prayer was made for revised post retirement benefits on the basis of such order of second time bound promotion.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-State came out with one notification dated September 15, 1995, by which it was decided not to allow time bound promotion policy with respect to non-teaching employees of Universities. The petitioners have challenged the said Order No. 1494 issued vide notification dated September 15, 1995, by one amendment petition.4. ...
Mihir Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.3.1984 passed by Deputy Commissioner' Deoghar in Misc. Revision-No. 79 of 1983-84 and also the order of the Commissioner of Santhal Pargans dated 20.5.1985 passed in Revenue Misc Appeal No. 105 of 1984-85. By the said order dated 22.3.1984 the Deputy Commissioner retrospectively cancelled the settlement of about 3 acres of land in plot No. 63 which was settled with the petitioner by the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner of the Santhal Paragana by the impugned order dated 20.5.1985.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioner made an application to the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar for settlement of 10 acres of waste land in plot No. 63 of village Khijuria, P.S. Mahanpur, District-Santhal Paragana for horticultural purposes. The said application was sent by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deogha...
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Nawal Kishore Sharma and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Dharampal Sinha, J.1. Heard counsel of both sides on the petitions at flags 'X' and 'Y'.2. In the petition at flag 'X' filed under Section 146 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, two persons-Brajesh Kumar and Vikash Kumar, have made prayer for being added as additional petitioners in this revision petition on the ground that they are transferees from the original petitioner of this revision petition of the interest in the property with regard to which this proceeding relates.3. Accordingly to the submission, the petitioner is now vitally interested in the result of this revision petition and the original petitioner, who had sold his interest in the concerned property, has ceased to have interest in prosecuting this revision petition. So they should be added. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhury v. Vishnu Hari Patil and Ors. reported in : [1983]1SCR898 wherein it was observed that...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pawansut Cold Storage (P.) Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, referred to this court the following questions for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act since the goods stored in the cold storage are not produced or manufactured by the assessee and in view of the insertion of Rule 5AA from April 1, 1981 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowing investment allowance and directing the Income-tax Officer to ask the assessee to furnish the particulars of other things ?' 2. To answer these questions it will be convenient to refer to Section 32A which provides for investment allowance in respect of ship, aircraft, machinery, plant, etc. This section, in relevant part...
Upendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has come against the order dated 13/14th December, 1995 passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-4 refusing to exempt the road tax and additional tax relating to Truck No. BHF 2631 belonging to the petitioner which was seized on 30th November, 1992 by Ramnagar Police Station and since then it was lying there. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass: The petitioner who is a registered owner of the aforesaid truck is said to have paid the road tax and the additional tax till 30th June 1986. The petitioner's case was that due to major repairing of the truck and for want of money, the operation of the truck was stopped from 1st July 1986 and all the papers were surrendered to the District Transport Officer, Motihari. The petitioner alleged that since 1st July 1986, the said truck was not plied on road and was lying idle. The petitioner filed application for exemption of the road tax and a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »