Patna Court November 1997 Judgments
Acme Construction Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which he has challenged order dated 28-6-1994 of the ld. CIT (Appeals) who held that the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under section 272A(2)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee was found to have failed to deduct income-tax at source under section 194C and had also failed to submit the annual return under section 206 of the IT Act on the due date it was, therefore, found liable to penalty under section 272A(2)(c) of the IT Act.Show-cause notice was issued. In reply, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that he did not deduct the income-tax under section 194C on the payment made to M/s. S. D. Construction, Khunti, which worked as sub-contractor with the appellant. It was added that M/s. S. D.Construction filed a letter before the appellant requesting not to deduct tax on the bills because the sub-contractor was also working with the Bihar State Construction Corporation and tax was being ded...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Kant Choudhary Vs. Managing Director, Central Bank of India and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.4.1992 (Annexure-1) passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 21.1.1993 and 21.7.1993 passed by the appellate authority and the Chief Manager respectively rejecting the appeal and the mercy appeal, vide orders contained in Annexures 2, 2/1 and 3 respectively.2. The petitioner was the Branch Manager in Banipur Branch of the Central Bank of India. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him on various charges in relation to his alleged unauthorised actions in the matter of disbursement of loans to borrowers and also to non-existent persons. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer who submitted his report finding all charges levelled against the petitioner proved and the disciplinary authority pursuant to the said order imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as per Regulation 4(h) of the Central Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Tripathy Vs. Smt. Shanta Grover and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
P.K. Deb, J.1. Both these matters have been heard analogously as the parties are almost the same and the matter of dispute also relates to the same suit premises.2. The respondent No. 3, Jagannath Singh of Second Appeal No. 3 of 1997 (R) filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1989 against the appellant Umesh Chandra Tripathy of the Second Appeal for eviction of the defendant from the premises detailed and described in Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity under Section 14 read with Section 11(1) (c) of the B.B.C. Act, 1982. The plaintiff, Jagannath Singh's case in brief is that he became the owner of the suit premises by virtue of a deed of assignment executed by Smt. Binita Mathur on 13.10.1988 and also as per paper transaction of the leasehold right made on 3/5.12.1988 by Bokaro Steel Ltd., Bokaro Steel City in his name. Further case of the plaintiff is that Smt. Shanta Grover was the first assignee and she relinquished her right in favour of Smt. Binita Mathur and the def...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Narbheram and Co. Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short 'B.B.C. Act') against the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st, Jamshedpur, in Eviction suit No. 1 of 1994.2. The admitted position remains that the defendant-petitioner was inducted as tenant under the plaintiff in a portion of a building situated at Sakchi within the town of Jamshedpur, details of which have been given in the schedule of the plaint for a fixed period of lease for five years commencing from 1.1.88 to 31.12.92. The said lease was registered one, which was executed on 5.4.91. The defendant was to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as rent. There is a clause in the lease deed being clause No. 4 (ii) in the following wordings:If the lessee shall be desirous of renewing the terms and conditions hereby created on the expiration thereof and of its such desire shall give to the lesser at least six months notice in writing i...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlala Prasad Sinha @ Brajilala Prasad Sinha and ors. Vs. the State ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
B.P. Sharma, J.1. The reference in this case has been made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the sentence of death passed by the Trial Court in ST No. 8 of 1996/307 of 1994. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya has passed the order of conviction again all the six appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced all the six appellants to death. The learned Trial Court also convicted the six appellants under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but did not pass any separate sentence under this count, as the death sentence has been passed under Section 302, IPC. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and the order of the Trial Court passed on 13th September, 1996, the appellants have also preferred the instant appeals, as mentioned above, and the Court has also made reference of the case for confirmation of the death sentence awarded by him in this case.2. This case may be treated as one of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kant Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 30th November, 1996, contained in Annexure-1, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya-cum-Secretary of the Managing Committee of Ayurved Medical College, Gaya, whereby and whereunder pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the authority on humanitarian ground took lenient view and passed order only for reverting him back permanently to the post from which he had been appointed as Principal in the said Institution.2. In short, the relevant facts are that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with respect to certain charges in which an enquiry report was submitted by the conducting officer and on consideration of the same, the aforementioned impugned order was passed.3. It was contended by Mr. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since no consultation was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In this case, the petitioner while prayed for direction on the respondents to admit him in the Ph.D. Degree Programme in the Department of Horticulture (Olericulture) for the Session 1996-97, has further challenged the admission of respondent (No. 7), Vidya Dhar Singh (Munda) in the said course. 2. While the main challenge in the matter of admission of respondent No. 7 has been made that he had no requisite minimum qualification of M.Sc. even at the time of his admission in Ph.D. Degree Course, the respondents have raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the seat is reserved for S.C./S.T. Category and petitioner being of general category, has no locus standi to challenge the admission, as he cannot be admitted. 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the respondents initially invited application for admission in Ph.D. Degree Course (1996-97) Session by notice dated 11th August, 1996. Only one seat of Horticulture (Oleri...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshwar Choudhary and Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
1. These two writ petitions have been heard together and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Kameshwar Choudhary, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3777 of 1987 is husband of Bimla Devi, who is petitioner 'in C.W.J.C. No. 3772 of 1987. They have challenged the orders passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities in a proceeding under Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Since the facts of the case are somewhat different, we shall deal with these two writ petitions separately. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 3777/87, in which Kameshwar Choudhary is petitioner, the facts are that he purchased 28 Decimals of land out of R.S. Plot No. 134, Chak No. 88 by a registered sale deed dated 5-7-1982. It is not in dispute that the registration was completed on 11-10-1983. By another sale deed dated 23-2-1983 the petitioner purchased 3 Decimals of land out of R.S. Plot Nos. 130 and 135 of Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Bishundeo Ojha and anr. Vs. Ramesh Choubey and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. The delay in filing Civil Revision No. 1153 of 1997 is condoned and the limitation petition is allowed.2. These two cases between the same parties involving the same dispute have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.3. Civil Revision No. 1153 of 1997 is directed against order dated 5.12.92 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rohtas in Misc. Appeal No. 68/2 of 1987/92 appointing receiver after setting aside the order of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, dated 11.9.87 in Title Suit No. 135 of 1985. Misc. Appeal No. 290 of 1997 is directed against order dated 10.6.97 passed by the Xth. Additional District Judge, Rohtas, in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1993 refusing to re-hear Misc. Appeal No. 68/2 of 1987/92.4. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case except to mention that the plaintiff, opposite party-respondent herein, filed Title Suit No. 135 of 1985 for appointment of persons named in the petition as arbitrators and to refer the ...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Kumari Devi Vs. Krishna Deo Upadhya and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
S.N. Jha, J.1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant is directed against the order allowing the plaintiffs petition for mandatory injunction and directing the defendant-appellant to demolish the disputed wall on the suit premises.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 16 of 1996 for specific performance of contract of sale and for setting aside the subsequent sale-deed dated 11.12.95 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit property. His case, so far as relevant, is that defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the property mentioned in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint to him for Rs. 70,000/- out of which Rs. 55,000- was Paid as advance on 8.12.95. When the parties reached Buxar where the deed was to be executed, defendant No. 1 changed his stance and demanded a higher price. The Plaintiff sent lawyer's notice asking the defendant to execute the sale-deed. He later learnt that on 11.12.95 t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »