Patna Court July 1997 Judgments

Surajdeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Rabi Bhushan Prasad and ors.

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 26-2-1997 passed by the learned Munsif, Latehar, in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1 of 1996 whereby the learned Court below refused to grant leave to the defendants-petitioners to contest the suit. 3. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short). 4. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that they are the owners of the suit premises having been purchased from Ram Prasad Sao and defendant No. 2 was originally inducted as tenant by Ram Prasad Sao in a portion of the house comprising wi...

Sarita Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. The entire criminal proceedings in Complaint case No. 850/96 under Section 323, 498, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the Court of Sri S.D. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, have been sought to be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P.C.2. The petitioner No. 1 Sarita Devi was married to the Complainant (opposite-party No. 2) according to Hindu rites rituals. It is the allegation of the complainant (opposite-party No. 2) that after the marriage, petitioner No. 1 made the life of the complainant hell and always persuaded him to go to her father's house at Kadru within the district of Ranchi and to live there as 'Ghardamad'. With that plea she was presurrising the complainant and she attempted to consume poison on several occasion only to make the complainant agreeable to her proposal to live as 'Ghardamad' in her father's place as like that of her elder sisters who were also living at her father's place at Kadru with their husbands. When ultimately, t...

Shree Panna Mills Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1998)65ITD24(Pat.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee in respect of assessment year 1992-93. The assessee derives income from letting out godown and premises. It filed return in the status of a firm claiming that it carried on business. Up to the assessment year 1991-92 it carried on business in iron goods. It also claimed the rental income as business income. For the assessment year 1992-93, covered under the present appeal, also it claimed in the return that it carried on business of servicing. The income from godowns and premises was claimed to be comprised of rent plus service charges. The service charges were claimed as business income. The total receipts from service charges during the year were Rs. 23,976 and the total expenses incurred for the same were Rs. 18,656. The balance shown was as income from business.Besides, staff salary of Rs. 18,156 was combined for collection as well as service work.2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not accept the claim. He held that the receipts from the servi...

Sheik AlimuddIn Vs. Ms. Tajmunnisa and anr.

Court: Patna

P.K. Deb, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code by the husband-petitioner against the wife-opposite party for quashing of the order dated 21.9.1994, as contained in Annexure-1 passed by Shri Ram Kishore Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 17/94 arising out of an order dated 7.12.1993 contained in Annexure-2 passed by the then Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in Misc. Case No. 2/86 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The opposite party No. 1-wife had filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of monthly maintenance to her and to her children before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 2/86. Her case was that she was legally married to the petitioner and after marriage they started to reside together as husband and wife. The opposite party has got his own Biscuit Bakery shop at Ghatshila and earns Rs. 5,000...

Sheik AlimuddIn Vs. Tajmunnisa and anr.

Court: Patna

P.K. Deb, J.1. This petition has been filed Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the husband-petitioner against the wife-opposite party for quashing of the order dated 21.9.1994, as contained in Annexure-1 passed by Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 17/94 arising out of an order dated 7.12.1993 contained in Annexure-2 passed by the then Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in Misc. Case No, 2/86 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.2. The opposite party No. 1-wife had filed an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance to her and to her children before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 2/86. Her case was that she was legally married to the petitioner and after marriage they started to reside together as husband and wife. The opposite party has got his own Biscuit Bakery shop at Ghatshila and earns Rs. 5,000/- per month and that he has also got a rice Shop ...

Madan Mohar Gupta Vs. Manik Lal Nandi

Court: Patna

M.Y. Eqbal; J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 6.8.96 passed by 2nd, Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur, in Misc. Appeal No. 7/95 whereby and where under the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the defendant petitioner and confirmed the order dated 16.5.95 passed by the Munsif, Jameshedpur, in T.S. No. 7/95 by which the Learned Munsif, Jamshedpur, granted temporary injunction on the application filed by the plaintiff O.P. under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C.2. The plaintiff O.P. filed the aforesaid T.S. No. 7/95 against the defendant for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of the vehicle held by him under the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession or attempting to take possession of the vehicle in any manner. The plaintiff's case is that the vehicle was purchased by the defend...

Mineral Area Development Authority Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Mishra, J.1. In this writ application filed by the petitioners, namely, Mineral Area Development Authority, a very short but interesting question arises as to whether an employee, respondent No. 1 who was originally drawing a salary of less than Rs. 1000/- per month continuously for more than five years on the date of commencement of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but subsequently drawing more than the statutory limit per month on the day of his retirement, will be deemed to be an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act.2. The fact of this case is not in dispute. The respondent- workman was previously appointed in the Jharia Mines Board of Health and Jharia Water Board constituted under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Mining Settlement Act, 1920 and Jharia Water Supply Act, 1914. By subsequent legislation, namely, Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority Act, 1986, the aforesaid two Boards were replaced. Subsequen...

Uday Narayan Tiwari Vs. Gauri Shanker Jalan and ors.

Court: Patna

R.M. Prasad, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 13.6.94 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 1/1985/1/1993 whereby the learned Addl. District Judge Vth Court at East Ghamparan set aside the order dated 17.10.1985 passed by the Sub-Judge, Motihari, in Eviction Suit No. 5 of 1984 and allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction with a direction to vacate the suit premises within a period of two months.2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed eviction suit No. 5 of 1984 against the defendant petitioner for his eviction from the said premises on the ground of personal necessity. The defendant filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and according to him, the plaintiff did not have the bona fide personal necessity of the suit premises.3. Both the parties in support of their respective cases led evidence and the trial Court dismissed the suit after recording ...

General Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Parvej ...

Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna

A.N. Chaturvedi, President: 1. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated 4.5.1995 passed by the District Forum, Munger, in Complaint Case No. 203 of 1994 and hence both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the aforesaid impugned order the District Forum directed the opposite parties (appellants) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 70,200/- (Rs. seventy thousand two hundred) jointly or severally as compensation for deficient and faulty service rendered by them together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim (13.2.1993) till the realisation of the amount. The District Forum further directed for payment of Rs. 2,000/-. (Rs. two thousand)as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) as the cost incurred for instituting the case. 2. In Appeal No. 217/1995 opposite parties 1 to 4 in the complaint petition are the appellants In Appeal No. 221/1995 the opposite p...

Keshari Mal JaIn Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

N.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm namely M/s. Bharat Automobiles. The firm is a dealer under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealer's Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter) the Licensing Order' as vide licence No. 17 of 1971. A show cause was served on the partners of the firm vide memo No. 192 dated 4.3.92 under the signature of respondent No. 2 to show cause why the licence of the firm should not be suspended for contravention of certain terms and conditions of the licence. The licence was suspended under Clause 8 of the Licensing Order. An appeal under Clause 9 of the Licensing Order preferred by the firm before the State Transport Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 22.5.92 (Annexure-4). However, the order of suspension of licence did not become operative in view of the stay order granted by this Court on 17.6.92. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the aforesaid orders.2. Sri N.K. ...