Patna Court November 1997 Judgments

Tripurari Mishra Vs. Most. Rajpati Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Jha, J. 1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 26-8-94 passed by the Vth Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Partition Suit No. 160 of 1981 allowing the petition of defendants 1st party under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) for inclusion of certain items of property in the, written statement and the preliminary decree. The defendants by the same very petition had also prayed for deletion of certain other items of property from the preliminary decree. The Court below, however, did not accede to that prayer. 2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this revision. In fact, no argument on the factual aspect of the case was made by the counsel for either party. Arguments were made on a question of law, whether in a partition suit, after preliminary decree is passed, addition of further items of property for partition by metes and bounds is permissible or not. 3. Mr....

Tata Timken Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single judge dated March 13, 1995, passed in CWJC No. 3264 of 1992(R), by reason of which, while declining to grant relief to the writ-petitioner-appellant, the application has been disposed of by giving the petitioner-appellant liberty to produce all the materials before the assessing authority and by further directing the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to consider and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard.2. Before appreciating the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, the factual background of the case may be portrayed. The appellant, a limited company, moved this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated July 28, 1992, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), by reason of which the Board opined that Circula...

Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Apar Limited

Court: Patna

Sachchidanand Jha, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against order dated 14-12-95 passed by the 8th Subordinate Judge, Patna, in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1994 holding that the Court has jurisdiction to appoint Umpire under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The background of the case is that the petitioner filed money suit No. 226of 1976 in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Patna, for realisation of sum of Rs. 65,49,535.42 Paise on account of damages for the alleged breach ,of contract in the matter of supply of power cable. The opposite party, in view of the Arbitration clause contained in the agreement, filed an application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Act. The subordinate Judge rejected the application. On appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 1980) this Court set aside the order and stayed the suit. The S.L.P. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The suit in the meantime was dismissed in default. This Court...

Central Mine, Planning and Design Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1998)67ITD195(Pat.)

1. These four appeals have been filed by the assessee. The appeals pertain to the asst. yrs. 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. The appeals are directed against the consolidated order dt. 22nd May, 1992, of the learned CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 and his order dt. 17th September, 1992, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. In all these four appeals the bone of contention is the validity of the orders of the AO passed under s. 163(2) of the IT Act treating the assessee as an agent of TSVETMETPROMEXPORT, Moscow, USSR.2. The assessee had wrongly paid appeal fee of Rs. 250 only.Subsequently he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 1,250 towards the total appeal fee of Rs. 1,500. In its written submission dt. 11th August, 1997, the assessee explained that the appeals filed were in time but due to short-payment of the appeal fee originally the appeals were considered as time-barred. It was explained that the appeals were in time and the appeal fee of Rs. 250 was paid origi...

Subhash Chandra Singh Alias Rana Subhash Singh Vs. Ramsingar Singh and ...

Court: Patna

Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. One Kali Singh of village Gadopur of (sic)rnea district left behind two sons, Ramlagan Singh, the defendant No. 1 and Shyam Nandan Singh, the defendant No. 2. Sunfulia Devi, the defendant No. 4 was wife of Ram Lagan Singh and Baikunth Singh, Ramprit Singh and (sic)andrakant Singh, the defendants 9, 10 and 11 were his sons, Binda Devi, (sic) defendant No. 12 and Rana Subhash Singh, the defendant No. 13 were respectively the widow and son of Ramudit Singh, pre-deceased son of (sic)mlagan Singh, Ram Sumari Devi, the defendant No. 15 and Akhilesh Kumar (sic)ngh, the defendant No. 16 were respectively the widow and son of (sic)mshresth Singh, another pre-deceased son of Ramlagan Singh.Bidyanand Singh, the defendant No. 2 was son of Shyam Nandan Singh, (sic) had six sons, namely, Abinash Singh, Arbind Singh, Ashok Singh, Ramnath Singh and Sheonath Singh, the defendants 4 to 8 and his sixth son (sic)msinger Singh was the plaintiff.2. According to plaintiff, in order t...

Kunjlal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Lok Nath Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th May, 1993 passed by Sri Raja Ram Singh, Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Session Trial No. 200/91 thereby and thereunder the sole appellant was found guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 201 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years but no separate sentence was passed for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge by the same judgment also acquitted the parents of the appellant, namely, Kamal Yadav and Sabitri Devi.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that, Munia Devi daughter of the informant Heman Gope was married to the appellant Kunjlal Yadav in the month of Asardh, 1989 and had gone to her Sasur and when she came back she stated to her parents and brother that her husband Kunjlal was demanding Rs. 10000/- in cash and one Rajdoot Motor cycle and further the husband was threatening that unless this demand was ful...

Rati Devi and ors. Vs. Mantu Sahu and anr.

Court: Patna

Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On 19.3.1991, the Sarhul festival day a truck (BRS 7008) as standing at village Beragani, District Ranchi and villagers were boarding thereon to take part in the procession. While Mahabir Pahan @ Mahabir Ram Munda, a 45 years old employee of the Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi was trying to board on the said truck, it moved and he fell down and came under the left rear wheel thereof. He sustained injury and succumbed thereto at the spot.3. The Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 10.4.1995 passed in Compensation Case No. 59 of 1991 filed by the dependents of the deceased under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that there was no question of rash and negligent driving in the facts and circumstances of me case and that the deceased fell down in the rear side of ...

Kedar Prasad Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. This civil revision arises out of an interlocutory order refusing to issue warrant/proclamation under Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) in the matter of appearance of witness in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act (in short, the Act).2. The petitioner filed petition for grant of probate of the Will said to have been executed by his mother Smt. Dulhin Indira Devi on 25.10.70 in his favour, under Section 276 of the Act, which was registered as Probate Case No. 22 of 1985. Ganga Prasad his father, pursuant to notice appeared in the case. It is said that on 12.7.88 the petitioner, his wife and son, on the one side and Ganga Prasad, on the other executed a deed of Panchnama authorising one Maheshwari Prasad to resolve the dispute as an Arbitrator. On 21.9.88 the said Maheshwari Prasad is said to have made an award on the basis of compromise petition dated 15.9.88 filed by the parties before him. On 7.12.88 pursu...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saro Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Guru Sharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. In a motor accident on 25.9.1984, one Tisu Mahto alias Basudeo Mahto, driver of truck bearing registration No. BHV 7125 lost his life. His dependants, namely, the widow, mother and five minor sons filed claim application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was registered as Compensation Case No. 133 of 1987. The Tribunal found that the claimants did not claim or receive any compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from the employer of the deceased and the claim case was not barred by limitation. Tisu Mahto alias Basudeo Mahto died in an accident while driving the truck (BHV 7125) and his dependants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,70,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim appl...

Hakim Roy and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Loknath Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th February, 1993 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 279 of 1988 thereby and thereunder the appellant Hakim Roy, was found guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code; Kedar Ray and Bhikhi Ray were also found guilty under Section 323, IPC and they were sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year; whereas the appellant Mathura Ray was found guilty under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he was also found guilty under Section 323, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year; whereas Arjun Roy was found guilty under Sections 326, 324, 148, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.12.87 Tunkeshwar Rai, the brother of the informant had gone to brick kiln situate near his house, then thes...