Patna Court April 1998 Judgments
Kamal Bhahdur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 32 of 1992, whereby and where under the learned Special Court of Economic Offences has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').3. It appears that a complaint was filed before the Special Court of Economic Offence at Muzaffarpur, stating therein, inter alia, that the accused has consciously concealed the true particulars of income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars and thereby has wilfully attempted to evade tax, etc., chargeable or imposable under the Act. On the basis of the complaint, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of offences under sections 276C and 277.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very basis of the prosecution of the petitioner has been set at rest by the Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Babu Vs. Dr. Anjani Kishore Prasad
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
V.N. Mishra, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed by one Ram Babu against Dr. Anjani Kishore Prasad for spoiling his eye. He has prayed for a Government service or Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation in relief. He has enclosed with the complaint petition the prescription of the doctor, the opposite party in support of his case. 2. The opposite party filed preliminary show cause stating that the complaint petition may not be maintainable as the same is not supported by any affidavit. The particulars of the complaint have not been specified and vague complaint is not maintainable. The amount of damages prayed is also excessive to create jurisdiction of a superior Court not justified in fact of circumstance of the case. He further stated that the complainant had come to the opposite party with serious condition of aphakis retinal detachment in the right eye which was operated upon by him with due care. The post operation result was encouraging with signs of 'good ridge' as noted in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nivas Talkies and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-25-1998
S.N. Jha, J. 1. This writ petition on behalf of M/s. Nivas Talkies and M/s. Shankar Talkies, described as proprietorship firms of Shri Ramesh Kumar Poddar, proprietor of cinema shows doing business at Musabani in the district of Singhbhum East, is directed against the notices dated 5-1-94 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum Circle, Jamshedpur, asking the petitioners to show cause why tax be not re-assessed under Section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 in the light of the audit objection.2. It may be stated at the outset that the dispute involved in this case relates to payment of entertainment tax governed by the Entertainments Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', Section 13B of which contains provisions regarding escaped assessment, paramateria with those of Section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. However, as would appear from the following discussion, this aspect of the matter is completely irrelevant for decision of this case.3. Mr. Pawa...
Tag this Judgment!Nanddeo Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
A.K. Prasad, J.1. This Criminal Appeal by the nine appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.1989 passed by Sri J.K. Prasad, Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamu, in S.T. No. 146 of 1988 whereby and whereunder he has convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on account of murder of Tapeshwar Singh and he further convicted them under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, as made out in the First Information Report (Exhibit 3), is as under:On 3.10.1987, around 7 p.m., Tapeshwar Singh, the deceased elder brother of the informant, Dhaneshwar Singh (P.W. 1) returned home after fishing from Jharna Nala and as soon as he kept the collected fish and came out in his Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sheojee Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Loknath Prasad, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.1983 (Annexure 4) recorded by RespondentNo.1 in B.S.E. Case No. 15/76 whereby and whereunder the complaint case filed under Bihar Shops Establishment Act, 1954 by the petitioner was dismissed and his dismissal order recorded by the Bank authority was duly confirmed.2. According to the petitioner, he was employed as clerk-cum-typist in Dhanbad branch of State Bank of India and he was also confirmed in the post of typist. It has been alleged that on 8.4.1974 in the Dhanbad branch of State Bank of India, one Badri Ram holder of Cheque No. 827709 for Rs. 6502.66 ps. drawn by the Executive Engineer, Works Division Dhanbad presented it for payment at the Govt. Counter and after due verification he was given token No. 471. However, Respondent No. 2 made an allegation that the petitioner somehow or other opened token No. 431 and in course of transmission of the cheque fraudulently altered...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
S.N. Jha, J.1. There are thirteen petitioners in this writ application. One set of Court fee has been paid. The office note points out that twelve sets of Court fee should be filed by petitioners. The said matter has been placed for orders.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid office note stating that as the petitioners have challenged the same order of dismissal passed against them only one set of Court fee is payable and the office note is not correct. In support of his submission he has relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhan Gosain v. The State of Orissa and Ors. 1957 SC 767 and A.N. Pathak v. Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Defence and Ors. 1987 SC 716.3. In the present case there are thirteen petitioners and they have challenged the order of their dismissal from service. Each of the petitioners were in employment and their services were terminated. They came to this Court and in pursuance of direction given by...
Tag this Judgment!Gunder Sao Alias Ganga Sao Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
S.N. Mishra, J.1. In this writ application under icles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.1985 passed by respondent Executive Officer, Sitamarhi, Municipality, by which he has intimated the petitioner that the sanction accorded by the Sitamarhi Municipality vide letter dated 22.8.1985 for construction of the house has been cancelled by the Sitamarhi Municipality vide its resolution dated 21.12.85, copy of the said resolution of the Municipal Committee is made Annexure 1 to this writ application.2. Briefly stated. the case of the petitioner is that father or the petitioner purchased the house situated over an area of 2 kathas 3-3/4 dhurs through registered sale-deed dated 11.8.42 for a sum of Rs. 9900/- and since then father of the petitioner came in possession over the house, in question. It is alleged that in 1983 an application has been filed by father of the petitioner before the Sitamarhi Municipality for sanction of map an...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Thakur and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
B.M. Lal, C.J.1. Limitation prescribed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act is 30 days (Thirty days) from the date of receipt of the notice whereas in the instant case admittedly the appellants had filed their objection after 3 years (Three years) from the date of receipt of the notice. On this ground alone, the writ petition was dismissed against which this appeal has been filed 2. Making out a case of a belated or invalid claim, which has no leg to stand, presenting such matters before a Court in the shape of a petition, appeal or revision, as the case may be, and to entertain such matters not only amounts to abuse of process of the Court but also results in wastage of Court's valuable time with the result disposal of genuine cases lags behind creating frustration amongst the litigants.3. Thus to prevent mushroom growth of such type of frivolous litigations, it is expected of the Counsel concerned, who is also an officer of the Court, to give correct ad...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. In a train accident, on 16.4.1990, one Dharambir Kumar an 18 years old boy died. The sole respondent filed claim application under the Indian Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench.2. The tribunal rejected the same on 15.12.1990, holding that the claimant was not dependent. He filed Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 1991 under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before this court, wherein the tribunal's order was quashed and the matter was remitted back to it for fresh consideration. This time by the impugned order dated 15.1.1997, the tribunal directed the Railways to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to Ram Lakhan Singh, Gulabo Devi, Master Master Ranbir Kumar and Leela Kumari, the father mother brother and sister of the deceased.3. Mr. Bose Counsel for the appellant submitted that at any rate the respondent and other members of the deceased's family were not entitled to more than Rs. 1 lakh as provided under the then existing Rules and the Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Shailja Devi Vs. Sheoji Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Partition Suit No. 40 of 1971, filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein was decreed on 17.6.1986 and she was held entitled to 1/2 share in Schedule-1 and 1/5 share in Schedule II lands.2. The defendants 1st set-respondents herein preferred Title Appeal No. 38 of 1986 against the said judgment and preliminary decree.3. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff transferred some of the suit lands and thereupon a petition dated 18.1.1991 (Annexure4) was filed on behalf of the defendant, who was sole appellant in appeal to add those purchasers as respondents third party to the appeal.4. On 27.4.1991 the parties were heard on the said petition for addition of parties and by the impugned order dated 30.4.1991, the learned Fourth Additional District Judge was pleased to allow the petition and directed the purchaser to be added as respondents-third party.5. It appears that in the said order it was observed that if the persons who have purchased part of the suit proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »