Patna Court August 1997 Judgments
Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. In this writ application prayer has been made for direction for quashing the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate i.e. Respondent No. 2 dated 18.12.1996 under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, as contained in Annexure 1 and the subsequent orders of approval of detention dated 28.12.1996 and confirmation of the State Government dated 25.2.1997.2. According to the petitioner, while he was in custody was served with detention order dated 18.12.1996 on 19.12.1996 by Respondent No. 2. Then he had also been served with the grounds of detention on 20.12.1996 with the documents contained therein. According to the petitioner, he was served with a copy of the documents which were not elegible and, as such, he had made request for serving legible copy of the documents. Then order dated 30.12.1996 was passed approving the order of detention by Respondent No. 4 dated 28.12.1996 which is contained in Annexure-2. On 3.1.1997, the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Devi and ors. Vs. Kausalya Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Murat Mahto of village Chaakwai, Tola Baghi at present within Nawadah district, died leaving his three sons, Meghan Mahto, Baijnath Mahto, the defendant No. 1 and Nanhku Mahto, the original plaintiff.Baijnath Mahto got two sons, namely, Devi Prasad, the defendant No. , 9, who was given in adoption to one Daroga Mahto of village Amar Singh Bigha and Nand Prasad Nand Kishore Prasad, the defendant No. 2, Meghan Mahto left behind two sons, Harslal Mahto and Ramjee Mahto. Lakhan Mahto son of Harslal Mahto died leaving behind his widow, Kaushalya Devi, the original defendant No. 3 and two sons, Vijay Mahto and Mukhlal Mahto, the original defendants and 5, Ramjee Mahto died leaving behind his widow,Lakshmi Devi the original defendant No. 6 and two sons, Awadhesh Mahto and Dinesh Mahto, the original defendants 7 and 8.2. On 14.11.1972 Nanhku Mahto filed Title (Partition) Suit No. 266 of 1972 in the Court of the Second Subordinate judge, Gaya for partition of his 1/3rd ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jitni and ors. Vs. Janki Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 of Title Suit No. 101 of 1975 have preferred this Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.6.1989, passed by the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge,Arrah, where by the plaintiffs were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 62,000/-, being the remaining amount of consideration money, within a period of three months and the defendants were directed to withdraw the said amount and then execute the sale deed with respect to the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs.2. One Baldeo Singh, son of Kali Singh, of village Larauba, P.S. Makdumpur, district Gaya, on 27.5.1975 executed an agreement for sale in favour of Janki Singh and others of village Bhikhampur, P.S. Sahar, district- Bhojpur with respect to 3.57 acres land of Revisional Survey Khata Nos. 56 and 66 situated at village Bhikampur. The lands, including a house over R.S. Plot No. 625 was agreed to be sold for Rs. 80,000/-. A sum of Rs. 14,000/- was paid in advance and Janki Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal Agarwal and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. The petitioners are the accused in Gamharia P.S. Case No. 67 of 1992 (G.R. Case No. 33 of 1992) under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In this writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for grant of appropriate writ for declaration that licence is not required by an Oil Miller under the provision of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Unification Order) and consequently in violation of the terms and conditions of the licence cannot attract any criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the partners of M/s. Shree Gopal Gil Mills, Gamharia, and petitioners No. 3 is their Munim. Shree Gopal Oil Mills is carrying on business of milling and manufacturing of edible oils and they were selling the product to the whole-sellers through commission agent or to the bulk consumer. The Mill/factory has been granted a licence under the Indian Fact...
Tag this Judgment!Wings Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Swan Pharmaceuticals and o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Sachchindanand Jha, J. 1. This civil revision by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against order dated April 15, 1997 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Patna in Title Suit No. 1 of 1997 rejecting the petition for stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit in question, i.e. Title Suit No. 1 of 1997 has been instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents, servants, distributors, sellers etc., restraining them from using colourable wrappers and goods with the trade marks DICLOWIN PLUS or NEW DICLOWIN PLUS and passing off the said product in the market. The plaintiff has further sought direction to the defendants to render true and faithful account of the profit earned by them by imitating and passing off the aforesaid trade name with respect to their products. According to the plaintiff, it obtained a licence from the Chief Licensing Authority-cum-State Drugs Controller, Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Guruleen Das and ors. Vs. Dharam Das and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The defendants, against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1972, passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Barh, in Title Suit No. 38 of 1966 have preferred this Appeal.2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit was decreed in part. The plaintiff was declared Mahanth of Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat, Gulabbagh, Barh within Patna district and was entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants.3. One Gulab Das, filed the present suit against the defendants. Accordingly to him Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat Math at Gulabbagh was founded by one Mahanth Ganesh Das. As per the prevailing custom the Mahanth used to nominate his successor Mahanth. Similarly Mahanth Ishwar Das of the Sangat had nominated Uttam Das as his successor Mahanth. Sandhya Das, the defendant No. 1 was the Chela of Uttam Das and Gulab Das, the plaintiff was the Chela of Sandhya Das. However, Sandhya Das renounced his Guru Uttam Das and became Chela of another Mahanth, Jiwan Das of...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi HussaIn Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
1. Heard Mr. Poddar, on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Vidhyarthi, on behalf of the respondents.2. Mr. Vidhyarthi has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this case on the ground of limitation. We find that the grounds taken by the petitioner in his petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have not been controverted by the Revenue by filing any rejoinder to that. As such, we condone the delay in filing this case and allow the limitation petition.3. In this case the petitioner has impugned the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated December 4, 1995, by reason of which the learned Tribunal has refused to make a reference to the High Court.4. The uncontroverted facts of the case are that in relation to the accounting year 1989-90, the Assessing Officer (respondent No. 4) considering the stands taken by the parties, held that the work was executed by the peti-tioner-assessee himself in his individual capacity and, as such...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Devi and ors. Vs. Lalmani Kuer
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the abovenamed defendants appellants against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1995 passed in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1989 dismissing the appeal as being time barred and thereby confirming the judgment dated 22.12.1987 passed in Partition Suit No. 111 of 1981 by the sub-Judge, I, Palamau at Daltonganj.2. The predecessors of some of the respondents had filed the abovementioned Partition Suit which was decreed by the original Court andthen appeal was preferred. While the appeal was filed, Seristedar put a note to the effect that the appeal is barred by limitation for about 13 days. The appellant did not file any condonation petition and contended that there is wrong calculation made by the Seristedar and the appeal is within time. Notice was issued on the limitation matter to the respondents and some of the respondents appeared and it appears that on 25.9.1995, the matter was heard by the learned District Judg, Palamau and by a scrappy or...
Tag this Judgment!Munsi-ii HussaIn Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
BY THE COURT:Heard Mr. Poddar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vidyarthi on behalf of the respondents.2. Mr. Vidyarthi has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this case on the ground of limitation. We find that the grounds taken by the petitioner in his petition filed under s. 5 of the Limitation Act have not been controverted by the Revenue by filing any rejoinder to that. As such, we condone the delay in filing this case and allow the limitation petition.3. In this case the petitioner has impugned the order of the Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dt. 4th Dec., 1995, by reason of which the learned Tribunal has refused to make reference to the High Court.4. Uncontroverted facts of the case are that in relation to accounting year 1989-90, the AO (respondent No. 4), considering the stands taken by the parties, held that the work was executed by the petitioner-assessee himself in his individual capacity and, as such, income therefrom. was included in his assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bachan Bind and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-1997
N. Pandey, J.1. Both the revision application are directed against a common order dated 26.6.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Jahanabad, in Tr. No. 186 of 1992, whereby in exercise of his power conferred under Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') he has summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section 376, IPC.2. It appears, previously the policy has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 144, 323, 504, IPC against petitioners Ram Bachan Bind, Munarik Bind, Chanrik Bind, Sarju Bind, Sri Kishun Bind, Gad Gad Bind, Nawal Bind, Awadhesh Kumar and Jugeshwar Bind but no charge-sheet was submitted against petitioner Lallan Bind. The Chief Judicial Magistrate accordingly took cognizance of the offence and summoned only those accused persons to face trial under Sections 144, 323 and 504, IPC against whom police had submitted charge-sheet, No summons was issued against petitioner Lallan Bind.3. It appears, during the ring of the tr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »