Patna Court October 1998 Judgments
In Re: Rohtas Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
S.N. Jha, J.1. Sahu Jain Limited has filed an application for recall of the order dated August 22,1997, granting leave to the State Bank of India and the United Bank of India, being secured creditors, to prosecute Suit No. 993 of 1984/T. A. No. 256 of 1996 and Suit No. 627 of 1985/T. A. No. 45 of 1996, respectively, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in terms of Sections 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The aforementioned suits were instituted, as would appear from their numbers, in the years 1984 and 1985 for recovery of outstanding dues from Rohtas Industries Ltd. The applicant herein, i.e., Sahu Jain Limited was impleaded as a co-defendant as guarantor. During the pendency ofthe suits (in the Calcutta High Court before their eventual transfer to the Debt Recovery Tribunal), on May 22, 1986, a provisional liquidator with respect to Rohtas Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was appointed by this court in the present proceedings. In the meantime,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The following questions have been referred for our answer ; '(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) on roads, culverts and sewage lines, etc., even though these roads, culverts and sewage lines were not meant for being used solely by employees drawing salary of less than Rs. 7,500 (rupees seven thousand five hundred) ? (ii) Whether roads, culverts and sewage lines, etc., could be held to be building used solely for the purpose of residence within the meaning of Section 32(1)(iv) ?' 2. The assessment relates to the year 1976-77. The assessee, Tata Robins Frazer Ltd., Jamshedpur, has claimed depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act of Rs. 1,38,144 (rupees one lakh thirty-eight thousand one hundred forty-four only) at the rate of 20 per cent, on Rs. 6,90,721 (rupees six lakhs ninety thousand seven hundred twenty-one ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
N. Pandey, J. 1. Petitioner has questioned the validity of the notice under Section 204 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 thereinafter called 'the Act') whereby the Chief Executive Officer had called upon him to pay arrears of municipal taxes within the stipulated time failing which steps were to be taken as per the provisions of Section 206 of the Act. 2. This is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of the building which lies within the jurisdiction of the Patna Municipal Corporation nor any dispute has been raised about quantum of demand. The only question which has been raised is as to what would be the period of limitationprescribed for recovery of arrears of holding tax due to the Municipal Corporation. 3. According to the petitioner, a bare reference to the impugned notice dated 4-12-198'7 would indicate that a demand has been made for payment of dues with effect from 1 -4-1978 to 31 -'12-1987. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions as enumerated under Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Kumar Sinha Vs. Smt. Nirmala Sinha and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Ashish N. Trivedi, J. 1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 2-5-1988 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Patna, the Executing Court, in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1981 rejecting the petitioner' s application purported to have been made under Order XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C. in Execution Case No. 2 of 1973. 2. On 25-5-1988 a learned single Judge of this Court while admitting the Civil Revision for hearing was of the opinion that the decision of the learned single Judge in Kumar Krishna Nand v. Babu Lal San, 1987 Bihar Law Judgment 306, requires reconsideration and therefore directed that the Civil Revision be heard by a Division Bench. It was further directed that during the pendency of the Civil Revision further proceedings in Execution Case No. 2 of 1973 pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge-VII, Patna shall remain stayed and liberty was granted to the Opposite Party to apply for vacation/modificat...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik Vs. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
S.N. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner is a Hindi newspaper published from Patna and Dhanbad having its registered office in the premises in question, which is part of the building known as Pant Bhawan on Bailey Road in the town of Patna. The writ petition was initially filed forquashing the notice dated 5-5-97, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna (described as 'House Controller' in the notice) in Eviction Case No. 7 of 1997 calling upon the petitioner to appear and participate in the eviction proceedings on the dated fixed, namely, 6-5-97. The petitioner objected to the maintainability of the proceeding by filing an application to that effect on 7-7-97. Two days earlier on 5-7-97 it had filed the present writ petition in this Court. The objection was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna, describing himself as 'competent authority' on 22-11 -97. It may be mentioned here that the Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned Sub-division exercises the powers of 'Contr...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Bahadur Sri NaraIn Arora Trust and ors. Vs. Smt. Sneh Lata Singh a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 27.2.98 passed by Sub-Judge-2, Patna City in Misc. Case No. 2/98 arising out of Execution Case No. 5/90 by which he admitted the aforementioned misc. case filed by the judgment debtor opposite parties and stayed the execution of the decree in execution case 5/90 till the disposal of the misc. case. The operative portion of the impugned order passed by the Court below reads as under:Perused the petition for miscellaneous case. In this petition some legal and factual grounds have been mentioned that can be considered only if miscellaneous case is admitted and both parties are given opportunity to place their case. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also clear that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution shall be determined by the. Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Here, the applicant has raised questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunia Mahatani and ors. Vs. Sobha Mahto and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
P.K. Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant No. 2-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1976 and 18-12-1976 respectively in Partition Suit No. 5 of 1974/6 of 1976 by which the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 6 has been decreed for partition of six annas share in the suit khata including the share of defendant-respondent No. 7.2. The suit land consisted of an area of 34.17 decimals appertaining to several plots of village Taranari, PS-Nawadih, District-Giridih, details of which have been mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. The genealogy with regard to the tracing of title by the parties have not been denied and said genealogy has been given by plaintiffs in the Schedule A of the plaint and the same had been reiterated in the impugned judgment under Para-60. One Mohan Kurmi was the original raiyat. He died leaving behind four sons namely Bhagirath, Atma Ram, Mana Ram and Kishun Ram. Bhagirath Ram, according to the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rita Dey Vs. Chandan Kumar Dey
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
S.K. Chattopadhaya, J.1. An interesting question has arisen in this case as to whether after decree of divorce is passed, ex-parte or bipartite against either of the spouses, the right to sue survive for the spouse against whom such decree has been passed by the Court even after the death of either of the spouses.2. Mr. Laik and Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, have frankly admitted that they could not lay hand on any decision of this Court, either for or against the proposition. However, whereas Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has strongly relied on the decision in the case of Vadalasetti Sanjayamma v. Badalasetti Nagamma, reported in : AIR1994AP13 , for his contention that even after the death of either of the spouses, during pendency of the appeal against a judgment of dissolution or divorce, the right to sue/survives and thus, legal heirs of the deceased spouse can be substituted, Mr. Laik, Counsel for the deceased-resp...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Singh Munda and ors. Vs. Darnav Bhushan Singh Munda and ors ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
A.K. Prasad, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is by the plaintiffs. They brought Partition Suit No. 182/62 of 1978-82 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, for partition of their share in the suit properties fully described in Schedules-A and B to the plaint, situated at village Reladih, within P.S. Bundu district Ranchi, The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by it, they preferred P.A No. 13 of 1983 (R) before this Court, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1989.2. The genealogical table as set out in the plaint and detailed below depicts the relationship between the parties:3. It is admitted fact that during C.S. Operation (1902-1910) the mundari khuntkatti tenure of the family was recorded in Khewat No. 5 (which corresponds to R.S. Khewat No. 3) and Bakast lands in Khata No. 1 were recorded in the names of Hemanti Singh Munda and Gandharv Singh Munda, sons of Mohim Singh Munda. It is not in dispute that in Revisional Survey (192...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
B.N. Agrawal, J. 1. All the writ applications except Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3017 of 1988 have been filedfor quashing Sub-rules (2) and (5) of Rule 6 of the Bihar Factories Welfare Officers' Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as rules), as substituted by Government notification bearing S.O. 119, dated April 27, 1994 contained in Annexure 1, whereas in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3017 of 1988 prayer has been made for quashing that portion of Government notification, dated May 20, 1985, contained in Annexure 1, whereby the revised scale of pay prescribed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules has been made effective from April 21, 1981. 2. The short facts are that the petitioners in these writ applications are different Sugar Mills within the State of Bihar employing Welfare Officers as required under Section 49(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act), 1948. Under Section 49(2) of the Act the concerned State Government is required to prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »