Patna Court May 1997 Judgments

National Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Santibir Singh and anr.

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the court under its inherent power can recall/set aside an order by which the Award of the Arbitrator is made Rule of the court without considerings the objection filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Court' for short).2. Before deciding this question it would be useful to state some relevant facts which resulted in passing of that order.3. The plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 20 of the Act before the court of the Subordinate judge, Palamu, against the defendants-appellants which was registered as Title Suit No. 72 of 1985. The learned court below ultimately referred the matter to the Arbitrator and later after hearing the parties published the Award and filed the same in court. The appellant (defendant No. 2) filed his objection on 22.12.1986 under Section 30 of the Act challenging the validity of the A...

Gaya Prasad Vs. Smt. Jamwanti Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30-9-1996 passed by the then Munsif at Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 35 of 1986 whereby the petition filed by the defendant-petitioner for passing appropriate order on the counter-claim raised by defendant No. 1 has been rejected in holding that the counterclaim can only be raised n respect of money suit relying on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Jashwant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur,AIR 1983 Patna 132 and Most. Pemlo alias Pemplo v. Hiralal Mahto, 1992 (2) PLJR 358. 2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs filed the abovementioned eviction suit against the defendants-petitioner on the relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant by filing the written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the written statement it had been pleaded that the plaintiffs were never in exclusive possession of the suit building nor owned it nor the same ...

Jogendra Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated23.9.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 94of 1991 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the complainant-opposite party to examine the witnesses who are not named in the complaintpetition before framing of charge.2. The aforesaid C.P. Case No. 94 of 1991 was initiated on the basis of thecomplaint petition filed by the complainant-opposite party against her husband-petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. In the said complaintpetition father-in-law and mother-in-law were also impleaded as accused persons.The complaint petition was filed against the petitioner for committing an offenceunder Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of theDowry Prohibition Act.3. The prosecution story was that the complainant was married to thepetitioner in the year 1978 and after marriage the petitioner started ill-treating herand...

Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. An extraordinary feature of litigations in this State is the filing of writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking direction to the State Government, and its agencies, to make payment of 'admitted dues'. What usually happens is that a contractor or a supplier having completed the work or having made the supplies in terms of a Government contract has to wait indefinitely, sometimes for years, for payment for the work done or against the supplies made. The Government department with which the contract was made does not deny the contract nor the contractor's/supplier's claim that the work was duly performed and/or the supplies were duly made in terms of the contract. Yet, the payment in terms of the contract remains withheld for many years. The usual plea in such cases is paucity of funds. Such a situation, as can be: easily imagined, lands to same further undesirable consequences and in some cases allegations are made that the department/authorities w...

Ram Krit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Patna

D.S. Dhaliwal, J.1. Under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is order dated February 30, 1992, passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner of an offence under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act and also order dated March 27, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna--opposite party No. 1, under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, whereby he sanctioned the filing of the complaint against the petitioner.2. The allegations against the petitioner are that while posted as Treasury Officer, Munger, he was required under Section 192 to make deductions of income-tax while paying salaries to the Government servants and to file a return intimating such deductions. It is alleged that although the petitioner made the required deductions but failed to submit the requisite return within time, and as such committed an offence punishable under Section...

Lipton India Ltd., Calcutta and Etc. Vs. Bihar State Agricultural Mark ...

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR1998Pat58

1. Both these writ petitions were heard together as the question of law which is involved in both of them is common. The factual aspects, save and except some minor differences, indicated herein below, are also common. In C.W.J.C. No. 6411 of 1989, the subject-matter of challenge is a communication bearing No. 370 dated 19th April, 1989, and No. 687 dated 7th July, 1989, issued by the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patna City. By those communications, the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee demanded from the petitioner payment of market fee on its products 'ready to serve beverages' under the brand name "Tree-Top" and on the failure to pay the market-fee actions under Sections 31-B and 31-C of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, I960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') will be taken.2. In C.W.J.C. No. 8820 of 1989, the subject-matter of challenge is a communication dated 28th March, 1989, issued by the Secretary of the Agricul...

Ram Krit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Patna

D. S. DHALIWAL, J. :Under challenge in this petition under s. 482 of the CrPC, 1973, is order dt. 30th February, 1992, passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner of an offence under s. 276B of the IT Act and also order dt. 27th March, 1992, passed by the CIT, Patna - opposite party No. 1, under s. 279(1) of the IT Act, whereby he sanctioned the filing of the complaint against the petitioner.2. The allegations against the petitioner are that while posted as Treasury Officer, Munger, he was required under s. 192 to make deductions of income-tax while paying salaries to the Government servants and to file a return intimating such deductions. It is alleged that although the petitioner made the required deductions but failed to submit the requisite return within time, and as such committed an offence punishable under s. 276B of the IT Act.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused ...

Baleshwar Ojha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

D.S. Dhaliwal, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks for quashing of his criminal prosecution in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 150/91 under Sections 341, 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 25.7.1991.2. As per allegations in the First Information Report on 17.7.1991 at about 8 P.M. A.S.I. Kishuni Ram of Police Station Patliputra opposite-party No. 2 accompanied Ail Ahmad, Nazir and other officials of Civil Court, Patna for delivery of possession of House No. 94 Patliputra Colony as ordered by Civil Court, Patna in Execution Case No. 4/87. While A.S.I. alongwith other members of the party was present in the Verandah of the house, the petitioner came out of the house and on seeing the police party got infuriated. The A.S.I. disclosed his identity and asked the petitioner to vacate the house as per the orders of the court upon which the petitioner started calling him bad names and also caught hold of the A.S.I. by the collar of his uniform. The petition...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjit Kaur and anr.

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the appeal arising out of an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the W.C. Act' for short) the appellant-Insurance Company has raised an interesting question with regard to its liability under the provision of Section 4A(3) of the W.C. Act for payment, of interest and penalty.2. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the order dated 16.5.1990 passed by the Commissioner under the W.C. Act refusing to recall its order dated 31.3.1990 whereby the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to make payment of interest and penalty to the claimant on account of its failure to deposit the compensation amount within the time stipulated under the W.C. Act.3. The facts of this case are not in much dispute. The husband of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 was a driver and while driving the tractor he met with an accident near Koderma, which resulted in his death. The widow claimant respondent No. 1 filed an application for comp...

Rajeshwar Sah Vs. Lalan Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

P.K. Sarin, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 24.1.1991 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1277 of 1990 dismissing the protest-complaint petition of the petitioner under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It appears that the petitioner had filed a first information report regarding an occurrence which took place in the night of 21st/22nd October, 1989, at about 11.30 P.M. and on such report Hathauri P.S. Case No. 62 of 1989 was registered for the offences under Section 147, 323, 452, 380 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred, to as the Code). The allegations in the first information report were that the accused-opposite parties came on the date and time of occurrence and got the shop opened by the father of the petitioner on the pretext that one Ram Bahadur Sharma had died and they wanted to purchase coffin. It was alleged that when the shop was opened the accused entered the ...