Patna Court November 1998 Judgments
Motilal Khatik Vs. Sonia MahtaIn and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. The appellant-defendant No. 1 has impugned the judgment and decree of the Courts below, by reason of which the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 14.5.72 has been allowed.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Upas Mahto @ Umesh Mahto died leaving behind his widow Sonia, three sons namely Pushu, minor Dhanu and minor Ganesh Mahto including two daughters, Mungia Mahtain and minor Jilpi Mahtain as his heirs and legal representatives, who inherited jointly the suit property having 1/9th share over the same. Besides the suit property as described in Schedule A of the plaint, said Upas also left behind some other lands and the plaintiffs are in peaceful joint possession of the property alongwith other co-sharers. All the minor sons and daughters of Upas are residing under the guardianship of their mother Sonia Mahtain. They have no concern with the defendant No. 2-second party namely Pushu. Maht...
Tag this Judgment!Quality and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
P.K. Sarin, J. 1. These three cases have been filed by the same petitioners against the same opposite parties. As a common question of law arises, the three applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, 2. It appears that a complaint (annexure-2) in each of the cases was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 'B', Special Investigation Circle, Patna, against the petitioners making allegations that they have tried to evade income-tax by filing returns showing false and low income. It was alleged that a raid was conducted at the premises of the petitioners and some account books were seized, which revealed that the turnover of the petitioners' business was much larger than shown in the income-tax return. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated and then the petitioners were issued notice to file fresh returns under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed assessing the petitioners at a higher income than show...
Tag this Judgment!Chitrasen Sinku Vs. Bijay Singh Soy and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
G.S. Chaube, J. 1. Faced with the inevitable consequence of non-compliance with the provision of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the petitioner has taken refuge in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (the Code) via Section 87 of the Act by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code for condoning the delay that has occurred in presenting this petition calling in question the election of a returned candidate, to be more precise, respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioner, Chitrasen Sinku was the Bharatiya Janta Party candidate in the election to 51 Singhbhum (ST) Parliamentary constituency held in 1998. Besides the petitioner, three others who arc respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this petition, were in the fray after the scrutiny and withdrawal of nomination papers. Respondent No. 1 Bijay Singh Soy was a Congress candidale; whereas respondent No. 2 Mangal Singh Bobonga was sponsored by Jharkhand Mukti Mo...
Tag this Judgment!J.L. Morison (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
N. Pandey, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the validity of seizure conducted by the Food Inspector, Patna (respondent No. 2) in exercise of his power conferred under Section 12 of the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Infant Act). A prayer has also been made for release of the feeding bottles along with other components seized by the Food Inspector on 10.9.1997 vide Annexures 2, 3 and 4.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered company engaged in manufacture, distribution and marketing of baby feeding plastic bottles in the name and style of 'Morrison Plastic Feeding Bottle, which is a container with nipple for feeding newly born babies. As would appear from the facts on record, on 10.9.1997, the Food Inspector (respondent No. 4) visited the premises of the petitioners and found that the company was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the aforementioned civil revision applications common question of law and facts have been raised and, therefore, these civil revision applications are disposed of by this common order.2. Civil Revision No. 1363 of 1998 arises out of an order dated 4.4.98 passed by Subordinate Judge-IV, at Jehanabad in Money Suit No. 2/92. Similarly Civil Revision No. 1364 of 1998 is directed against an order dated 3.4.92 passed by the same Court in Money Suit No. 3/92. Civil Revision No. 1365/98 arises out of an order dated 3.4.98 passed by the same Court in Money Suit No. 6/92. By the impugned orders the Court below recalled its earlier order dated 17.7.92 granting remission in the payment of Court fee.3. Money Suit No. 2/92 was filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the defendant opposite party for recovery of Rs. 1,55.996/- being the insurance claim. The plaintiff initially filed an application in the aforesaid suit seeking exemption from payment of Court fee on the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarbanand Paswan Vs. Mahendra Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
J.N. Dubey, J. 1. This revision isdirected against the order dated 20-9-1991 of the Additional Munsif, Danapur passed in Title Suit No. 51/88-55/89 whereby he recalled his earlier order passed under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC. 2. It appears that on 14-4-1988 plaintiff-opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 51 of 1988 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Danapur for declaration of his title in the land in dispute without impleading the applicant as party. On 28-4-1988, the applicant filed application for impleadment in the suit which was allowed. On 30-11-1988, he filedwritten statement denying the claim of the plaintiff-opposite parties. On 16-12-1988, he filed his documentary evidence. On 29-8-1991, he filed an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC for bringing on record certain documents which were not available with him earlier which was allowed on the same day after hearing counsel for the applicant. On 3-9-1991, the opposite parties filed an application for recalling the order dated 29-8-199...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vidya Devi Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Aftab Alam, J.1. This writ petition was filed by one Vidya Devi Sinha and her husband Sisir Kumar Sinha as petitioners 1 and 2. Vidya Devi Sinha died during the pendency of this writ petition. After her death her heirs and legal representatives got themselves substituted in her place and now it is the sons and daughters of the deceased Vidya Devi Sinha who along with their father seek the reliefs that were earlier claimed by the deceased petitioner No. 1.2. This writ petition seeks reclamation of a house situate in Gaya and belonging to the deceased Vidya Devi Sinha (hereinafter referred to as 'the house owner') which was auction sold in a proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. The certificate proceeding was initiated for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,840.28, claimed by the Gaya Municipal Corporation as arrears of Municipal taxes; adding to this sum, the Court fee amount, the interest pendente lite and various other charges, the certificate amount on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
B.M. Lal, C.J.1. The petitioner-assessee M/s, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., which is a public limited company, having its registered office at 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Bombay-400 023, head Sales Office at Calcutta, and stockyards in various States in India, is primarily engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, factory at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar, and is a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act bearing registration No. J.R. 1 (R) to J.R. 1 (vi) R. and under Central Sales Tax Act bearing registration No. J.R. 1 (C), as the goods manufactured by the company are moved from its Steel Plant at Jamshedpur to its stockyards in another States in the regular course of business and as the Company sells its products from Jamshedpur and stores in the different stockyards from where the products are supplied to its customers in another State, has filed these two petitions for quashing the revised assessment order dated 4.9.80 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Engineering and Processing Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, Steel Engineering and Processing Works, a partnership firm having its office at Haziganj, P. S. Chowk, Patna City, District--Patna, through Shri R. K. Bhartiya, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Notification No. CIT/OSD/JUR-127/Vol. III of 1996-97, dated December 6, 1996, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, Revenue Building, Gardiner Road, Patna, under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), transferring the file of the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle 1(2), Patna, to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Ranchi.2. It is contended that right from its inception, the petitioner is carrying' on its entire business of the firm at Patna only. In Ranchi there was a stockyard of the firm but that was only for the purpose of storage and delivery of goods, sales, etc., were effected at Patna and for ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Engg. and Processing Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, Steel Engineering and ProcessingWorks, a partnership firm, having its office at Haziganj, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, District-Patna, through Shri RX. Bhartiya, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification No. CIT/DSI)/JUR-127/ Vol. 1-11/96-97, dated 6-12-1996 issued by the Commissioner, Patria' Revenue Building, Gardiner Road, Patna, under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') transferring the file of the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Commissioner, Investigation Circle 1(2), Patna, to the- Dy. Commissioner, Special Range, Ranchi.2. It is contended that right from its inception, the petitioner is carrying on its entire business of the firm at Patna only. In Ranchi there was stock year of the firm but that was only for the purpose of storage and delivery of goods, sales, etc., was effected at Patna and for the buyers of Ranchi areas deliveries were made from Ranchi stock-year of the firm.3. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »