Patna Court September 1998 Judgments
State Bank of India Employees Union and ors. Vs. State Bank of India a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
N. Pandey, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have questioned the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority, contained inAnnexure 1 series, whereby they have been imposed punishment of withdrawal of specialallowance/stoppage of increments. A prayer has also been made to quash the order of theappellate authority, contained in Annexure 2 series, whereby appeals preferred by themagainst the orders of the disciplinary authority were dismissed.2. The petitioners at the relevant time, were working at the local head office of the State Bank of India, Patna. As there was an unfortunate incident in the premises of the Bank, on September 3, 1986 the petitioners are departmentally proceeded for the following charges:-'(i) At about 2.30 P.M. on the 3rd September you reportedly entered the 4th floor of the LHO building of the Bank at J.C. Road, Patna, alongwith about 40 other members of the staff, shouted slogans including...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmdeo Prasad Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 25.4.1998 passed by the Munsif, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Title Suit No. 30 of 1994 by which the Court below decided the question of limitation as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.2. At the very outset preliminary objection has been taken by the counsel for the opposite party about the maintainability of this revision application. According to the learned Counsel, the impugned order by which the suit had been dismissed is a decree which is appellable and, therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable. In view of the objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition, I have called upon the learned Counsel for the parties to advance their arguments on this question.3. Mr. Mahesh Prasad. No. III, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order under revision is not a decree inasmuch as it does not decide the rights of the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Mukhopadhya (Mukherjee) and anr. Vs. Ram Niwas Agrawala
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1988 and 30-7-1988 respectively passed by the then Sub-Judge, IVth Court, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 6 of 1982 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs suit for specific performance has been dismissed.2. The facts of the case run in a narrow compass. The suit property situates in Plot No. 2485 Khata No. 60 of Mouza Hirapur, District Dhanbad, having a building thereon. The plaintiffs-appellants' case is that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs on one side and the father of the defendant, namely, Ram Swarup Agarwalla on the other side for sale of the house and the property for stipulated consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Such agreement was arrived at in writing on 26-5-1979 vide Ext. 5. As per the terms of the agreement, Ram Swarup Agarwalla would seek permission from the Deputy Collector, Urban Ceiling Office, Dhanbad, within a year next and thereafter receipt of permission would execu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. Bhukhal Mahato and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
P.K. Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1987 (decree signed on 16-11-1987) by the then Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 6 of 1987.2. When the appeal was preferred by the State, the claimants-respondents have also filed Cross-Appeal under Order XLI, rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein they claimed more than what has been assessed as market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court and also interest and solatium on the basis of the Amended Act, as has been held by the apex Court as reported in : AIR1985SC1576 .3. About 12 acres of land was acquired vide declaration No. 4799 dated 31-5-1962 for the purpose of Bokaro Steel Project in L.A. Case No. 21 of 1962-63. The Notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 31-5-1962. The Collector made award in the name of the claimants-respond...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Durga Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. Cement for being sold is packed in gunny bags which the petitioner purchases from time to time from different parties. On the purchase of gunny bags it duly pays sales tax at the rate prescribed for gunny bags (earlier 4% and later 7%) in the notification issued under Section 12 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For the sale of cement manufactured by the petitioner, the price of cement is fixed on Metric ton basis on which sales tax is realized from the customers at the rate of 11% as fixed for cement in the notification issued under Section 12; the price of the packing material, the gunny bag is separately charged from the customers which includes sales tax at the same rate as paid by the petitioner at the time of its purchase. Further case of the petitioner is that in the cash memo/credit memo issued by it to the purchasers the sale of cement and the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and Others Vs. M/S. Magadh Motors and Others
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
V.N. Mishra, Member: 1. The present complaint case has been filed by the State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Excise Prohibition, complainant No. 1 and Special Superintendent of Excise, EIB, complainant No. 2 against M/s. Magadh Motors, opposite party No. 1 through its partner Manoj Kumar, opposite party No. 1(a), Sunil Kumar Verma, opposite party No. 1(b). Area Sales Manager, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Patna, opposite party No. 2 and M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, Marketing Department, Automotive Product Group, Bombay, opposite party No. 3 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 6,03,466.60 with interest with effect from 25.5.1990 and reasonable compensation for non-supply of vehicles against advance payment. 2. The facts of the complaint case in brief are that Magadh Motors, opposite party No. 1 sent a quotation to the Secretary to Commissioner of Excise, Government of Bihar for supply of one Mahindra and Mahindra, Model 640 DP. Diese...
Tag this Judgment!United Collieries Limited Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.7.1986 and 26.7.1986 respectively passed by the then Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh, in Money Suit No. 11 of 1982 whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,75,210.30 paise of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.2. The plaintiff was the erstwhile owner of Central Sounda Colliery and was dealing in coal business and in course of such business plaintiff supplied coal to the Northern Railway prior to 31.1.1973 and for that six separate bills for a total value of Rs. 1,97,887.30 paise were drawn up in the month of January, 1973, out of which an adjustment was made for Rs. 20,677/- and a balance of Rs. 1,77,210.30 paise remained outstanding. As per the plaintiffs case, Central Sounda Colliery was taken over of its management under the provisions of Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1973 on 31.1.1973, which was later on converted into an Act. Therea...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. Shiv NaraIn Singh Alias Shiv NaraIn Prasa ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 5.9.97 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Banka in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1988 whereby he has rejected the amendment petition filed by the petitioners respondents seeking amendment of their written statements.2. The plaintiffs/appellants filed Title Suit No. 74/70 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur for declaration that the land in suit described in Schedule A of the pLalnt belongs to the plaintiff and the defendants second party and the defendants first set have no right, title and interest in the suit land. A further declaration was sought for that the alleged Sudhbharna deed dated 9.7.1929 and the alleged Kewala dated 4.7.1940 were farzi transaction and formation of chak in the name of the first party is ultra vires, null and void, illegal and inoperative. The plaintiffs case, inter alia, is that the Sudhbharna deed executed on 9.7.1929 in respect of land measuring 13.35 acres and th...
Tag this Judgment!Saurabh Kumar Pandey and Nitish Kumar Pandey Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Sachchidanand Jha, J. 1. As the dispute involved in these two writ petitions is one and the same and the facts are also almost the same, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, asking them to file return within 30 days of the notice for reassessment on the ground that income chargeable to income-tax for the assessment year 1988-89, had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act. Xerox copies of the notices have been enclosed as annexure-5 to the writ petitions. 3. The petitioners are the minor sons of one Jagdeo Pandey. At the relevant time, he was a partner of Sachdeva and Company, Dhanbad. While completing his assessment for the year 1988-89 on March 30, 1989, he made certain additions, as detailed below, which his Assessing Officer had tried to explain in the hands of his minor sons, i.e., the petitioners herein. The amount was ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj Munshi Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Aftab Alam, J.The petitioner, a registered partnership firm; (hereinafter referred to as `the assessee' ) filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the notice (Annexure-3) issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 7-9-1995 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') declaring that he proposed to `assess the income' of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90; also comes under challenge the proceedings under section 147 of the Act initiated pursuant to the impugned notice.2. The facts of the case are brief and simple and can be stated thus. The Assistant Commissioner seized the assessee's books of account in course of a search conducted at the assessee's business premises on 2-11-1988. According to the revenue the assessee was maintaining two sets of cash books in respect of the transactions for the first two months of the accounting year. It is an admitted position that from the date of their seizure the books of account remained in the cus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »