Patna Court January 1998 Judgments

Rajesh Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.A. Sharma and A.K. Prasad, JJ.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of Section 25-A of the Bihar Finance Act as well as the 46th Constitution Amendment.2. Heard.3. So far as the Constitution amendment is concerned, this Court did not issue any notice to the respondents and, in fact, this has not been pressed.4. The validity of Section 25-A of the said Act has been upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in Builders Association of India and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1992 (1) PLJR 1. The controversy thus stands settled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the respondents have made deduction of sales tax from the bills of the petitioner and, therefore, the same should be refunded. It is not necessary to express any opinion on this question. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard and if such an application is made, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.5. This wr...

Arbind Kumar Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Patna

Sachidanand Jha, J. 1. This civil revision by the defendant-applicant of the miscellaneous case, is directed against an order by which the court below has transferred the miscellaneous case under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('the Tribunal', in short) in view of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is not necessary to notice the facts of the case, except to mention that the opposite party-State Bank of India filed Money Suit No. 14 of 1990 in the court of the first Subordinate Judge, Begusarai, which was decreed ex parte against the petitioner on September 30, 1992. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 1993 for setting aside the ex parte decree on September 4, 1993. An application was made by the opposite party-bank to transfer the miscellaneous case to the Tribunal established under the said Act on the ground that in terms of Section 17 of the Act it is the Tribun...

Bijendra Prasad and ors. Vs. Smt. Duleshwari Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR1998Pat122

1. Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st Au gust, 1997, whereby the plaintiffs have been non suited, inter alia, on the ground that the suit as framed and filed for seeking relief for partition, accounts and dissolution of the firm was not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Partnership Act'), which envisages that registration of a firm is a condition precedent to maintain the suit. Thus, in nutshell in the absence of registration of the firm, the Court gets no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the suit.2. The pleadings as set out by the appellants/ plaintiff are that one Hari Mohan Prasad and his three minor sons, namely, Bijendra Prasad, Birendra Prasad and Kali Shankar Prasad, claimed that a partnership firm was constituted by a deed dated 3-7-1954 (the deed was unregistered) wherein minor plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 under the guardianship of their father H...

Harinandan Prasad and anr. Vs. Smt. Basmati Devi

Court: Patna

1. This Civil Revision petition has been preferred by the defendants-petitioners against the order dated 25.8.1992 passed by the Subordinate Judge III, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 179 of 1991 whereby he rejected the petition filed by the defendants-petitioners to recall the order dated 24.2.1992 passed by his predecessor. The facts to the extent relevant may be briefly noticed.2. On 9.10.1991 Title Suit No. 179 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party Smt. Basmati Devi against Smt. Kausalya Devi, who was the sole defendant in the suit. On 11.10.1991 the Court admitted the plaint and thereafter issued appropriate directions regarding issuance of notices etc. and also passed an order directing the defendant to maintain status quo. It appears that the sole defendant in the suit namely Kausalya Devi had died earlier on 12.12.1987 and this fact was also known to the plaintiff since in another suit, namely Title Suit No. 191 of 1986, in which the plaintiff was defendant No. 1, le...

Lakhan Lal Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

S.J. Mukhopahaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service made after departmental proceeding vide order dated January 16, 1988 (Annexure-8), as well as the order dated May 16, 1990 (Annexure -11), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected .2. As in this case, a short question of law is involved, so it is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of this case, except the relevant one, as stated hereunder.3. The petitioner was functioning as Village Level Worker (V.L.W.) under the Respondents-State and was posted in the Kurtha Block of district Jehanabad. He was made an Executive Agent for construction of one Kuccha Bandh, having project No. 20/82 -83. For such execution, he was provided with a cash amounting to Rs. 1,90,000 and 255 quintals of food grains amounting to Rs. 2,34,625. Subsequently, it was alleged that a total work of Rs. 1,59,518.80 Ps. was performed and so the petitioner was asked to refund back the rest of the amount o...

Kamkap (India) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1998)67ITD237(Pat.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is a Firm deriving income from commission as Agent of M/s. G. Premjee Ltd. and M/s. Stemcor UK Ltd., Hongkong.2. Search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted in the case on 8-12-1995. In response to notice under section 158BC the assessee filed return on 19-7-1996 for the block period of 1-4-1985 to 8-12-1995. It had filed return of income for the first time on 31-1-1995 for the assessment year 1994-95. It had stated that the business was started from 2-3-1993 and the firm decided to close the accounts for its first year business on 31-3-1994 as it would not have been feasible to prepare the accounts for 28 days only, i.e., 2-3-1993 to 31-3-1993. It received commission of Rs. 23,46,650, Rs. 13,27,769 and Rs. 4,15,411 during the period relevant to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. It claimed deduction 50% of the aforesaid commission under section 80-O of the IT Act. From the balance commission it ...

Jugeshwar Prasad Sah Vs. Santosh Kumar Agrawal and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Jha, J.1. This civil revision by the defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, the Act) arises from an order of eviction.2. The plaintiffs-opposite party filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 19 of 1993 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. According to them, they are the owners of the premises, described as wooden counter, which was let out to the petitioner, in the beginning at the rental of Rs. 75/- per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 165/- and then Rs. 550/-. The petitioner executed the memorandum of kirayanama and was regularly paying rent under proper receipt. Plaintiff No. 1's two sons, namely, Santosh Prasad Agrawal and Kaushal Kumar Agrawal (who were later added as plaintiffs) as well as plaintiff No. 2 Gandhi Pd. Agrawal were sitting idle. The plaintiffs therefore needed the premises reasonably and bona fide in order to start busine...

Gopal Jee and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

K. Chattopadhaya, J.1. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh for the petitioners, Mr. P.C. Roy, on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Government Advocate, on behalf on respondents 1 to 4.2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to proceed with Sector IV PS. Case No. 38/97 under Section 304(B), 405, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed in the Court of C.J.M. of Bokaro. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 13-8-97 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, has issued process under Section 82/83 Cr. P.C. against the petitioners. The only question of law which is to be decided in this case is as to whether the Bokaro Court has any jurisdiction to entertain complaint and pass the impugned order when the incident took place at Varanasi and the police filed final form, submitting ...

Vijoy Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Patna

Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have been heard analogously as the matter in issue is the same. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners being the workmen under the respondent No. 2 and not as contract labour as defined in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and also issuance of a writ of mandamus on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay wages to the petitioners from March up to April 17, 1995, including all admissible benefits agreed from time to time between the parties which was allowed to all the regular employees of respondents No. 1 and 2 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to take appropriate action for abolition of the contract labour in the mines of which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the lessees. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Central Government Undertaking. Pre...

Maheshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. Shobha Dvei

Court: Patna

Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. This revision by the defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act') arises from an order of eviction passed by the Munsif Sadar (East), Muzaffarpur, in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 9 of 1985.2. The opposite party and her mother Deo Sarani Devi (original plaintiff No. 1, since dead) filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises situate at Diwan Road. Kalyani Bara, in the town of Muzaffarpur, on the ground of personal necessity. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises originally belonged to Rash Bihari Lal, who died in the year 1965 leaving behind two widows Saraswati Devi, since dead, and Deosarani Devi, and one daughter Shobha Devi, plaintiff No. 2, opposite party herein, born from Deosarani Devi. After his death, the entire property including the suit premises devolved on the two widows and the said daughter. On 14.12.70 Saraswati Devi executed a regi...