Patna Court August 1998 Judgments
Bibi Shahnaz @ Munni Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this case a very interesting point of law is involved regarding right of a divorced wife to claim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner in this case has challenged the order dated 18.8.1997 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Criminal Revision No. 676 of 1993 whereby the learned Sessions Judge modified the order dated 27.8.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga and allowed the petition of the petitioner so far as it relates to claim of maintenance for the children only.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this question are that the petitioner in the year 1990 filed a petition against her husband (opposite party No. 2) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr. P.C) stating inter alia that she was married with the opposite party No. 2 in the year 1982 and gave birth to two children. It is stated that although she is legally marrie...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Devi Vs. Rajendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment, dated 16.11.1990 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger acquitting the opposite parties from the charges levelled against them under Sections 302/34, 120B and 364 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that all the accused persons (opposite parties) charged and tried under the aforesaid sections and they pleaded not guilty of all the charges levelled against them.3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the accused persons came at the house of the informant Sona Devi on 24.11.1985 at about 8 a.m. and informed her that her elder daughter, namely, Sabitri Devi is seriously ill and requested her and her husband to go to her daughter's place to look after her. Her husband showed his inability to go to his elder daughter's place in view of illness of the informant. But he was persuaded by the accused Rajendra Prasad and Bindeshwari Mandal to do so and he went his home with them for Kiranpur. When he had no...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Aftab Alam, J.1. The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') and the Revenue are in dispute over the question whether certain structural materials and fixtures such as Columns, Braces, Trusses, Purlins, Ducts, Chutes, Hoppers, Bins, Walkways, Stair cases, hand railings and platforms etc. which were forged from duty paid iron/steel plates, angles, channels, girders etc. supplied by the petitioner and which finally went into the erection and installation of Sinter Plant No. 2 in the petitioner's works were eligible to excise duty. This disputes has been brought to this Court by filing this writ petition against the order, dated 22-11-1990 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna. By the impugned order, he confirmed the demand for Rs. 3,55,81,610.71 paise against the petitioners and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs, further directing that interest @ 18.5% would accrue on the amount of excise duty and penalty if that amount remained unpaid aft...
Tag this Judgment!United Commercial Bank Vs. Kuya Collieries (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1987 passed by the then Subordiante Judge, Vth Court, Dhanbad in Money Suit No. 124/50 of 1976/87.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a Government undertaking banking company having its branch office at Jharia, P.S.-Jharia, District-Dhanbad. As per the plaint, the defendant-respondent No. 1 through its Director, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff-Banking company for cash credit facility up to the limit of Rs. two lakhs. Plaintiff-Banking company sanctioned the same. The cash credit account was opened up and the defendant No. 1 agreed to pay interest at the rate of 5% per annum above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to the minimum rate of interest of 10% per annum. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 agreed to the personal guarantee for the payment of the said advance. As per rules of the Banking company the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 fo...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Tiwari and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1986 passed by the then Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Money Suit No. 120/49 of 1980-82. where by the plaintiff-respondent's suit has been decreed for realisation of a sum of Rs. 28,520.32 ps. with interest at the rate of 14 per cent pendentilite and further interest till date of realisation at the same rate.2. The admitted position remains that the appellant approached the respondent-Bank for a loan for purchase of a Metador Bus. The respondent-Bank allowed a loan of Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant No. 1.. who was defendant No. 1 in the suit and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had stood as guatantor for defendant No. 1 in the payment of the loan. The necessary documents of letter of guarantee, promissory note, deed of hypothecation etc, were also executed on 10.9.1973, while making payment of loan to the defendant No. 1 against the loan amount. Some instalment had been paid by the defendant No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel India Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated May 15, 1998, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad (respondent No. 3), contained in annexure 14 to the writ petition, setting aside the certificate exempting it from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials and directing the Bokaro Steel Plant not to issue any tax-free raw material to it, except on receipt of the new/revised exemption certificate. By the said order, which has been passed by him in exercise of revisional power conferred on him under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Joint Commissioner has held that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials under the Government Notification S.O. 95 dated April 4, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the notification') because it is not manufacturing any finished goods.2. The Government of Bihar adopt...
Tag this Judgment!Jugnu Alias Ruplal Mahto Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
A.K. Prasad, J.1. This appeal at the behest of sole appellant (Jugnu alias Ruplal Mahto) is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1995 in S.T. No. 224 of 1990 passed by Sri Subhas Chandra Jha, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat whereby and whereunder he has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, under Section 307 read with Section 34, and under 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to under go life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and five years' rigorous imprisonment each on the counts under 307 read with Section 34 and under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.It appears that charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was not established against the appellant.2. It may be stated that co-accused Gan...
Tag this Judgment!Most. Hamidan and ors. Vs. Reyasat Ali and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1983 passed by the IVth Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranch! in Partition Suit No. 13/17 of 1978-82 by which the respondent Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (d) 5 counter claim has been allowed ex parte while dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit for partition.2. A short point is involved in this First Appeal. Plaintiffs filed the suit being Partition Suit No. 13/17 of 1978-82 for getting partition of their 14 Annas Share in the Municipal Survey Plot No. 1701 having Municipal Holding No. 825 New and 1255 old situated in Ward No. III within the Ranchi Municipality. The description of the property in detail were given in the Schedule B of the plaint. In the plaint, the title of the plaintiffs added with their predecessor has been traced out. I am not going into those matters of tracing out of title etc. as the matter is only in respect of counter claim being allowed by the impugned judgment.3. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Rina Sen Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. The proposition raised for consideration on which, it s said, there is no precedent of this court, is straight and simple enough to admit of any doubt or dispute. There may of course be dispute regarding its application in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The petitioner has been served with a notice issued in terms of Section 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act (in short, 'the Act'), in the matter of ascertainment of cost of construction of a house by the Assistant Valuation Officer, the Income-tax Department at the behest of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Ranchi. She seeks quashing of the notice and' a declaration that the proposed investigation is illegal and without jurisdiction principally on the ground that an investigation of the kind can be made only in connection with and during pendency of a proceeding, and inasmuch as no proceeding is pending (or can be initiated) the proposed investigation is an abuse of the process of law and liabl...
Tag this Judgment!Jakir Mian Alias Jakir HussaIn and anr. Vs. Abdul Rauf and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the above-named applicants who were defendant Nos. 13 and 14 in Partition Suit No. 5 of 1974 which was allowed against the appellants by judgment and decree dated 2.3.1977 by the then Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh.2. The Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed the above-mentioned suit for partition of his share from defendant Nos. 1 to 12 in respect of the lands of khata No. 122 of village Kuthantia. PS-Chatra, Hazaribagh. The total area in respect of that khata No. 122 is 2.60 acres. The defendant Nos. 13 and 14 who are the appellant in the case were not the original co-sharers but they have come to possess the land and as such according to the plaintiffs, those defendant Nos. 13 and 14 have got no right over the suit land. Objections were raised regarding the payment of fixed Court fee for partition suit from the side of defendant Nos. 13 and 14 and as such the plaint was amended by inclusion of declaration that the defendant Nos. 13 and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »