Patna Court November 2001 Judgments

Most. Ghughuni Devi and ors. Vs. Suraj Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th September, 1985 and 12th October, 1985 respectively passed by Sri M.M. Verma, 5th Additional District Judge, Siwan, passed in Title Appeal No. 112/23 of 1980/1985. The first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29th September, 1980 and 13th October, 1980 respectively passed by Munsif-I, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 441 of 1969. The plaintiffs of that suit are the appellants herein.2. The admitted facts from the pleadings of the parties are to the effect that there was one Mahesh Barhai who left behind two sons Huias and Lakhan who were recorded in the Survey as tenants. The suit land came to be owned and possessed by Phuleshwari Devi, widow of Lakhan Barhai. To this extent, the parties in the Court below were in agreement. However, the plaintiff-appellant's case in the Court below was that Phuleshwari sold the suit land to one Bishundeo Sharma of village Badsandi by registered s...

State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Daroga Prasad and ors.

Court: Patna

S.K. Katriar, J.1. The State of Bihar and its functionaries are the petitioners herein, were respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 8069 of 1997 (DarogaPrasad v. State of Bihar and others), and have preferred this application for review of the order dated 28-7-1999 (Annexure-1), passed in the writ petition, whereby the order dated 10-8-1998 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition), along with the order dated 25-9-1998 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition] were quashed. The High Court in effect had set aside the order of the Accountant-General deducting from the post-retirement benefits of the writ petitioner the excess salary paid to him while in service.2. The writ petitioner was in the service of the Bihar Government, was working as a Borer and was drawing the pay-scale of Rs. 825-1,200. He claimed entitlement to the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1,540, which was denied by the State Government. He along with two other persons had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6631 of 1991(Ramashray Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar an...

income-tax Officer Vs. Branch Manager, Central Bank of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (2002)256ITR26(Pat.)

1. The Department is in appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that unexplained deposits in the name of Nepali citizens in the Indian banks cannot be taxed under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main reason asserted by the Department is that it is not proved that the source of such deposit in the bank is actually in Nepal and not in India.2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that on the basis of the enquiry conducted at the bank information was gathered under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act for violation of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act relating to a Nepali/non-resident. Notice under Section 142(1) was issued but no return was filed.3. Instead a copy of the ledger account of the depositor's account in the bank was filed. The learned Assessing Officer considered the deposit as income by the non-resident in India and, therefore, taxed it as unexplained investment under Section 69 together with interest ea...

Hardeo Yadav and ors. Vs. Dinanath Yadav and ors.

Court: Patna

1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 471 of 2000 filed on behalf of Hardeo Yadav and others and Letters Patent Appeal no. 569 of 2000 filed on behalf of Dlnanath Yadav and others arise out of one and the same Judgment dated 21-1-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 562 of 1993* whereby and whereunder he decreed Title Suit No. 128 of 1971 in part setting aside the judgment and order of dismissal of the suit recorded by Subordinate Judge II. Danapur and as identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals they have been heard together and are going to be disposed of by this common order. 2. Dinanath Yadav and others in the capacity of the plaintiffs brought Title Suit No. 128 of 1971 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge II, Danapur against defendants Kusum Devi and others seeking relief for a decree of partition and allotment of half share to them in the joint family property morefuliy described in Schedule I and II of the plaint and also for carving ...

Ram Naresh Sharma and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J.1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th January, 2001 passed in CWJC No. 925 of 1998 by which he has quashed the decision taken by the Establishment Committee dated 15th December, 1997 (Wrongly mentioned as 5th December, 1997 in the order) granting promotions to the appellants and others as Head Warder. Copy of the said decision of the Establishment Committee was not annexed with the writ application but was annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 19 and 21 to 29 to the writ application (appellants and others).2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The writ petitioners and respondents 6 to 29 to the writ application (out of whom, nine have filed the present appeal and will be referred to hereinafter as appellants) were appointed on the post of Warders on different dates in accordance with the provisions contained in the Bihar...

Binda Sah and ors. Vs. Vijay Nandan Prasad and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J.1. Five writ applications being CWJC Nos. 4016, 9520, 3077, 7509 and 4239 of 1998 were filed by the officers of Sale I of the Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank challenging the promotion of 12 private respondents to the writ application (appellants) in Scale II (Area Manager/Senior Manager) on the ground that while considering the promotion matter, relevant criteria for promotion was not applied. All the writ applications were heard together and were allowed and the promotion given to all the private respondents to the writ applications (appellants) were quashed by the learned Single Judge by order dead 15th March, 2001 with a direction to the Bank in question to consider the cases of all eligible candidates following the principles of seniority-cum-merit. However, the said promotion will be subject to final result of this Court in CWJC No. 4533 of 1996 wherein promotion policy adopted by the Bank itself was under challenge. The appellants aggrieved by the aforesaid order ha...

State Bank of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J. 1. This writ petition is filed at the instance of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') seeking to challenge an award, dated May 15, 1997 (Annexure-1) given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad on a reference made to it under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute under reference was regarding the validity of the bank's action in terminating the services of thirteen individual workmen and the reference was made in the following terms: 'Whether the management of State Bank of India was justified in terminating the services of the under mentioned workmen with effect from March 5, 1986? If not, to what relief the workmen were entitled to (sic)?' The reference then gave a list of the thirteen concerned workmen. 2. The Tribunal in its award found and held that: 'The action of the management of State Bank of India was not justified in terminating the services of the concerned workmen as mentioned ...

Laxmi Nivas Poddar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.S. Garg, J.1. Learned Counsel for the parties are finally heard.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and property of the order dated 3-7-1996 passed in Encroachment Case No. 5193 of 1994 by Anchal Adhikari (Annexure-9) and Order dated 10-9-1998 passed in Land Encroachment Appeal No. 4 of 1996-97 by the Collector/District Magistrate, Patna (Annexure-10).3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are two-folds, firstly that the recommendations were made by the Anchal Adhikari on 3-7-1996 to the Collector for making a direction that the land in dispute which appears to be under the encroachment of the petitioner may be settled in the name of the petitioner in terms of the Industrial Policy and on the same day the said Anchal Adhikari passed the order directing the eviction of the petitioner from the said land, and, secondly that the Collector/District Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts of the case nor took into consid...

Braj Kishore Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. This case is the sequel to an earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in Braj Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar 1997 (1) BLJR 652 : 1997 (1) P.L.J.R. 509. The petitioners' contend that the State Government in refusing to pay them the arrears of their salary for the period prior to their regularisation in service pursuant to the earlier Full Bench decision was trying to deny them what was already their due in terms of the earlier decision. The State Government on the other hand maintains that it fully complied with the earlier decision of this Court by giving approval for the petitioners' regularisation in service and by releasing the necessary funds to the University for payment of the petitioners' salary from the date of their regularisation in service.2. There are 20 petitioners in this writ petition. They earlier came to this Court, seeking certain reliefs, inC.W.J.C. No. 497 of 1984 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 6-4...

Md. Zakir HussaIn Vs. Hareshwar Prasad Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In an election petition filed under Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') respondent No. 5/election petitioner joined certain persons as party, inter alia, pleading that as the respondent Nos. 6 to 15 had also contested the Election, they were necessary party. Subsequent to clause of the evidence of the parties the election petitioner filed an application for deletion of respondent Nos. 6 to 15 from array of defendants. The said application was allowed by the learned Munsif acting as Election Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petitioner (returned, candidate) has come to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the said order.3. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the plaintiff being Dominus-litis cannot be asked to joint parties and if he had joined certain parti...