Patna Court May 1997 Judgments

Ram Pratap Singhania Vs. Smt. Renuka Devi and anr.

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award deted 6.2.1989 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Accident/Claims Tribunal, Giridih, in Misc. Case No. 34/11 of 1983-88 whereby and whereunder the Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs. 36,624/- and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount to the claimant-respondent.2. The claimant who is the widow of the deceased filed an application before the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband in motor vehicle accident. While the deceased was returning from his duty he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. BPN. 9293 at Jain More. The owner and insurer of the vehicle appeared and contested the suit. After hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation for a sum of Rs. 73,248...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radhe Shyam Agrawal,

Court: Patna

Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. These references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Revenue. The reference in Tax Cases Nos. 61 and 62 of 1983 in which the assessees are full brothers and members of the bigger Hindu undivided family is in the same terms. Tax Case No. 9 of 1982, is a different case altogether. But although the reference is not in the same terms and the facts, naturally, also are not exactly the same, the controversy is one and the same in these cases. They have, as such, been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Tax Case No. 9 of 1982, the material facts are as follows. The assessee's family consisted of himself, i.e., Radhe Shyam Prasad Agarwal, wife, two sons (including a minor son) and three daughters (including one minor and one married daughter). The assessee used to file returns in the status of a Hindu undivided family and was being assessed to income-tax as such. On the last date of the previous yea...

Satyadeo Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

R.M. Prasad, J.1. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for regularisation of his service by absorbing him in the regular full time vacant post of Peon in the Reserve Bank of India (in short 'the Bank').2. In short, the relevant facts of the case are that in the year 1989 the Bank called for the names of persons eligible for appointment in the Bank from the Employment Exchange, pursuant to which the name of the petitioner along with others was sent by the Employment Exchange. The Bank selected the petitioner for appointment as Ticca Peon in its service and, accordingly, issued the appointment letter dated June 26, 1989 (Annexure 1). The petitioner was required to attend his duties regularly, failing which would entail the removal of his name from the panel list. Similar letters were issued to other candidates also.3. According to the case of the petitioner, Mazdoor, Peon and Khitmatgar are ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Gurucharan Singh (Now Dead) Narendra Singh an ...

Court: Patna

Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. All the three appeals have arisen practically out of the same judgment and decree but only for technical purpose, three appeals have been preferred and as such all the three appeals have been heard analogously.2. The facts are simple. The predecessor of the present respondents, namely, Gurucharan Singh entered into a contract with the appellant i.e. the Union of India through Garrison Engineer, Military Engineer Services, Ranchi for term contract for artificers work including renewal and minor works at Khojatoli, Ranchi. The agreement was executed on 7th August, 1979 and it came into effect from that date. A dispute arose between the parties regarding payment and as such the sole arbitrator was appointed as per Arbitration clause of the agreement but as the arbitrator did not file award, the respondent filed an application on 8.4.1986 under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (the Act) for direction to the sole arbitrator to file award and the same has been num...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhe Shyam Agrawal and ors.

Court: Patna

SACHCHIDANAND JHA, J. :These references under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Revenue. The reference in Tax Cases Nos. 61 and 62 of 1983 in which the assessees are full brothers and members of the bigger HUF is in the same terms. Tax Case No. 9 of 1982, is a different case altogether. But although the reference is not in the same terms and the facts, naturally, also are not exactly the same, the controversy is one and the same in these cases. They have, as such, been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Tax Case No. 9 of 1982, the material facts are as follows. The assessees family consisted of himself, i.e., Radhe Shyam Prasad Agarwal, wife, two sons (including a minor son) and three daughters (including one minor and one married daughter). The assessee used to file returns in the status of an HUF and was being assessed to income-tax as such. On the last date of the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77, partial partitio...

Ram Dutta Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing the order dated 4-7-1984, contained in Annexure 5, passed by the Dy. Director, Consolidation (headquarter), Patna in Revision No. 2270/81 under Section 35 of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which he has allowed the revision filed by the husband of respondent No. 5 with a direction to record the name of Rajeswar Ojha (deceased) and other respondents after removing the names of Ugrasen Pandey and Gaya Pandey in the Khatian. 2. In short, the case of the petitioners is that the land in dispute, measuring about 5 acres are situated in mouza Hathilpur in Brahampur Anchal in the district of Bhojpur, over which the petitioners as well as respondents second set lay their claim on various grounds and also over which Dy, Director of Consolidation (Hd. qurs.) respondent No. 3) has declared title of Rajeshwar Ojha (deceased) ...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Narayan Ojha and ors.

Court: Patna

S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.8.1996 passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the M.V. Act') awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the claimant/respondent No. 1 by way of interim compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed on 17.8.1996 and this appeal was filed on 20.12.1996 specifically mentioning that award has not yet been prepared. The Stamp Reporter by his stamp report dated 14.2.1997 gave a report that defects, limitation and stamp report will be made on depositing the amount required under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by the appellant. The said amount having been deposited, fresh stamp report was made on 17.2.1997 pointing out that the appeal was filed in time.3. Mr. Roy appearing for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Tribunal is vitiated in law inasmuch as it has failed to notice that on 15.7.1994 the accident took place and on...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ram Khelawan Paswan and anr.

Court: Patna

Ravi Nandan Sahay, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23rd April. 1988, passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Dhanbad-cum-Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal in Title (M. V. Claim) Suit No. 44/83 whereby a sum of Rs. 50.000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant respondent on account of death of the son of the claimant-respondent in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The case of the claimant respondent was that on 21-12-81 while Naresh Paswan, deceased son of the claimant, was going to bazar on cycle he was dashed by a truck hearing registration no. BMW 2531. It was alleged that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the said truck in rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident and the death of the deceased. The owner of the truck and the appellant insurance company appeared and filed their respective written statement opposing claim of the claimant on various grounds. The learned Claims Tribunal after going through t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. L.C. Mitra

Court: Patna

1. These two references involve a common question formulated for the opinion of this court and they relate to two assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are in respect of the same assessee.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in this case ?'3. The facts of the case as stated in the statement of case are that the assessee is a doctor. He made additions in the existing X-ray units and E.C.G. plants during the assessment years under consideration and claimed investment allowance of Rs. 9,643 and Rs. 1,860 respectively. The assessing authority held that the assessee was not entitled to claim any investment allowance on these articles because they were not producing articles and things as envisaged in Section 32A of the Income-tax Act. On appeal, the ...

Mithila Properties, Publication Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1997)63ITD113(Pat.)

1. Being aggrieved with the conclusion of the Appellate Commissioner of Wealth-tax (A/c) in first appeal that the assessee is liable to wealth-tax as per section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 in respect of the value of the immovable property which are godowns let out to Food Corporation of India (FCI), and TDC the present second appeal to this Tribunal is filed by the assessee-company. To properly understand the case for adjudication, essential factual aspects have to be recorded.2. The assessment years involved are 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee owns godowns which have been let out to FCI and TDC since the year 1979-80. The rental income from such godowns is being assessed by the revenue authorities as income from house property whereas the assessee contends that the rental income is assessable as business income and which stand of the assessee has been accepted by this Tribunal in its IT appeals. The matter, we were informed, now rests before the Hon'ble Patna High Court by w...