Patna Court December 1998 Judgments
Mahabir Sao Alias Mahabir Sao Mistri Vs. Smt. Chanchal Gupta and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil revision application at the instance of the defendant-tenant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, 1982, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1997 passed by the Munsif 1st, Gaya, in Eviction Suit No. 45 of 1994, whereby he decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Opposite Party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises.2. The plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, bearing Holding No. 126-A situated at Sarai Road, in the district of Gaya on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff's case is that the acquired the suit premises by registered deed of sale from Smt. Rampati Devi, wife of Murari Prasad. The name of the plaintiff was duly recorded in the demand register of Municipal Corporation, Gaya and she had been paying rent and taxes in her own name. The further case of the plaintiff is that in Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Jha Vs. Deputy Director, Census and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this Civil revision application, the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.7.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Muzaffarpur, in Misc. Case No. 42 of 1993, whereby he has set aside the exparte decree dated 15.5.1993 passed in Money Suit No. 56 of 1992.2. The plaintiff-petitioner field Money Suit No. 56 of 1992 seeking a decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,85,756.50 together with interest pendent lite and future being the amount of arrears of rent payable by the defendants for use and occupation of the premises belonging to the plaintiff. The petitioner's case is that in the aforementioned suit an application for attachment before judgment was filed and the Court below after hearing the petitioner passed an order and issued a notice of conditional attachment calling upon the defendants to furnish security bond of Rs. 1,50,000 within tenures from the date of service of notice which was issued on 23.9.1992. The petitioner's further case is th...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mohammad @ Noor Mohamad Ansari Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
R.N. Sahay, J.1. Appellant Noor Mohammad has been convicted under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, and has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 16/93.2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant can be gathered from the report of Bhagirath Rai, Inspector, Customs (P) Division, Motlhari, dated 14.6.93. The said report is quoted hereunder.On receipt of a secret information regarding presence of Shri Noor Mohammad, son of Gafoor Mian of village Barbat Sena, Bettiah Muffasil. West Champaran on 13.6.93 a team of officers and staff of Customs (Prev.) Motlhari rushed to village, Barbat Sena, said Shri Noor Mohammad was found sitting near his neighbour home, who soon after the seight of Customs staff tried to fled away but due to alertness of the Customs staff he could not escape and apprehended by them sensing the interference and other obstr...
Tag this Judgment!Akash Coke Industries Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging notice dated July 20, 1989, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, calling upon it to show cause as to why penalty Under Section 16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') read with Section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') be not imposed on it.2. This writ petition was filed on July 31, 1989, and on August 2, 1989. This Court while admitting it passed an interim order staying the operation of the aforesaid notice with the observations that if the tax has already been paid on the sale or purchase of coal, no road permits shall be withheld.3. On August 2, 1989 itself an order imposing penalty on the petitioner was passed, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 6 to the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner in reply to the counter-affidavit of the State.4. At the time of final hearing, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Arun Prakash Pandey and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 30-7-1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge VI, Motihari, in F.D.-17 of 1976, by which he has allowed the petition of the Intervenor-Opposite party purported tobe under Order XXVI, Rules 13 and 14(2) as well as under Order XX, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC) holding that the preliminary decree dated 19-7-1978 passed in Partition Suit No. 17 of 1976 in favour of the plaintiff is collusive and fraudulent and the final decree proceeding initiated on the basis of the said preliminary decree is collusive and nullity. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed Partition Suit No. 17 of 1976 for a decree of partition in respect of her 2 annas share in the said property. The said suit was contested by the defendant and a contested preliminary decree was passed on 19-7-1978 declaring 2 annas share of the plaintiff in the suit property. By the said...
Tag this Judgment!Om Narayan Singh Vs. Shailendra Singh Alias Shivji Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 1.8.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge IV, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 120 of 1994 by which he has allowed the prayer made by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties instituted the aforementioned suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering in the management and other agricultural operation of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit land. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, is that the defendant was holding a power of attorney in his favour executed by the principal owners. Shri Markendaya Singh, Shri Prabhu Nath Singh, Shri Ram Sakal Singh and Aditya Narain Singh and Ram Surat Singh, but in the garb of power of attorney he was mis-managing the account with malafide motive and as such the above noted persons cancelled the power of attorney vide a registered deed of cancellation dated 16.11.1994 and then the said per...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
J.N. Dubey, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 27.11.1993 of the respondent No. 2, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Pakur, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of limitation.2. It appears that Subhas Mandal, husband of the petitioner, died in a motor accident on 6.1.1989. She filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act before the respondent No. 2, which was rejected on the ground of limitation on 27.11.1993. Feeling aggrieved she has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act of 1994 (for short 'the amending Act') and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore Prasad Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
B.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the order dated May 21, 1998, the original file of the certificate proceeding, being Suit No. 189 of 1984-85, before the District Certificate Officer, Vaishali, has been produced before this court. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the requisition made by the bank under Section 5 of the Act does not contain the verification required to be made in Form II. The original requisition contains blanks. The petitioner, therefore, is justified in submitting that there is no proper requisition in the proper form as required by Section 5 of the Act. 2. What is, however, more surprising is the fact that the certificate officer has not signed the certificate in the prescribed form and caused the certificate to be filed in his office. In the eye of law, therefore, there is no certificate and in the absence of a certificate being duly signed and filed in his office, the certificate officer could not issue a notice to thecert...
Tag this Judgment!Steel India Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
R.A. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition to review our judgment dated 19th August, 1998, whereby its writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1887 of 1998 (R), was dismissed.2. The petitioner was granted exemption by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, vide order dated 30.4.1997 from payment of tax on purchases of raw materials under the Govt.Notification No. S.O. 95 dated 4.4.1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification), which has provided incentive in the form of exemption from payment of tax on purchase of raw material to those entrepreneurs who use the raw material so purchased in manufacturing the new finished goods. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Commissioner), in exercise of his suo motu power of revision under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter refereed to as the Act) after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner cancelled its exemption certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad HussaIn Ansari and ors. Vs. the North Bihar Industrial Area Deve ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
R.M. Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.1997, contained in Annexure 9, whereby and whereunder certain recoveries of the amount paid in excess at the time of earlier revision of pay-scale in the year 1981 have been ordered to be made.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is highly inequitable to recover the said amount from the petitioners after lapse of 17 long years even though the said payment was made not on account of any misrepresentation made by them (the petitioners). It is submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, under more or less similar circumstances, restrained the authority from making recovery.3. Mr. Bajla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Authority submits that in view of the admitted fact that excess payment was made to the petitioners, the authorities are left with no option but to recover the same.4. It may be true th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »