Patna Court July 2001 Judgments
Hari Shankar Kumar and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
1. Both the appeals have been filed against the same order, dated April 3, 2001, passed by a learned single Judge and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The learned single Judge, by the aforesaid order, has remitted the matter to the authorities to consider the matter afresh regarding the appointment of computer operators in the concerned branch of the State Bank of India. 2. The writ petitioner-respondents filed the writ application for quashing the order dated February 5, 2001, passed by the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 4 to the writ application) by which the appellants of L.P.A. No. 382 of 2001 were appointed to the posts of computer operators and to consider their cases for appointment to the posts of computer operators from the due date along with consequential benefits. 3. The admitted facts are that the writ petitioner-respondents and appellants of L.P.A. No. 382 of...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Lal Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
1. The only issue in the present writ petition is as to who is responsible for payment of tax as is being realised on certificate action. Contention of the petitioner is that he sold the vehicle registered as DRC-1927 and had inside recorded by a deed of agreement dated 14th April, 1978 and had this further fortified on an affidavit before the Magistrate, 1st Class that any liability prior to 14th April, 1978 is of the petitioner and thereafter of the purchaser.2. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by the State it is accepted that any dues on which tax is being realised, it has been paid until 30th September, 1980. No reply has been given to the statements made by the petitioner.3. The issue clearly is who is to pay the taxes as are due after the vehicle has been sold and consequential aspect that the person who holds the vehicle now between respondents 4 and 5 (Sarjug Tiwari and Girendra Nath Tiwary) who may not have had the vehicle transferred in their name may also face f...
Tag this Judgment!Dhananjay Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. In this application altogether three hundred and twenty four petitioners have moved this Court impugning the letter of the Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 2) dated 11th October, 1991, by reason of which it was intimated that the State Government has allowed the pay-scale of Rs. 260-408 to the Accountants of the different Treasuries from 1-5-1980 to 31 st March, 1981 and further that the scales of pay of Rs. 730-1080 and Rs. 1400-2600, which were granted to such Accountants of the different Treasuries with effect from 01-4-1981 and 01-1-1986, was without any verification and decision with respect to the scale of the aforesaid period i.e. 01-4-1981 and 01-1-1986 and the same is still under consideration of respondent-State. This letter is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Though initially this was the prayer of the petitioners but subsequently by filing two different amendment petitions they have also cnallenged Annexure-...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jagannath Mishra Vs. Cit and ors
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
This petition has been brought impugning a notice dated 30-3-2001, annexure 4 to the writ petition, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice is in the context of incomes of a Hindu undivided family on which the assessee was assessable to tax for the assessment year 1993-94.It needs to be mentioned that earlier to this notice of 30-3-2001, under section 148 (indicated to the court as having been received on the date as in the notice), another notice No. 5692, dated 1-3-2001 (annexure 3), was also received by the assessee. This was a notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Patna.Neither of the two notices referred to, that is, the one dated 1-3-2001, and the other dated 30-3-2001, under section 148 of the Act were responded to or replied by the assessee. These notices have been in the hands of the assessee for almost three and half months. The writ petition mentions nothing that on the receipt of the notice of 1-3-2001, issued b...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
1. This petition has been brought impugning a notice dated March 30, 2001, annexure 4 to the writ petition, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice is in the context of incomes of a Hindu undivided family on which the assessee was assessable to tax for the assessment year 1993-94. 2. It needs to be mentioned that earlier to this notice of March 30, 2001, under Section 148 (indicated to the court as having been received on the date as in the notice), another notice No. 5692, dated March 1, 2001 (annexure 3), was also received by the assessee. This was a notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Patna. 3. Neither of the two notices referred to, that is, the one dated March 1, 2001, and the other dated March 30, 2001, under Section 148 of the Act were responded to or replied by the assessee. These notices have been in the hands of the assessee for almost three and half months. The writ petition mentions nothing that on the receip...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Yadav and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
1. Petitioners, being accused in Pandarak P.S. Case No. 48 of 2000, dated 4-6-2000 surrendered on 18-1-2001 and on 23-4-2001 filed an application for grant of bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the ground that no charge-sheet was submitted though 90 days' period had already expired on 18-4-2001. It appears from the materials on record that a report was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day reporting that till 10 a.m. no charge-sheet had been submitted but subsequently a fresh report was submitted at about 11.45 a.m. to the effect that charge-sheet had been received in the office. The learned ACJM thus by order dated 23-4-2001 (Annexure-1) rejected the petition for grant of bail filed under Section 167(2). Cr.P.C. Petitioners, thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge against the said order in Cr. Rev. No. 320 of 2001 which too was dismissed by order dated 4-6-2001 (Annexure 2). Petitioners thus have moved this...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Prasad Chamaria Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated August 9, 1989, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhagalpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 55 of 1983 contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the Labour Court in purported exercise of power under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, accepted part of the claim of the applicant-respondent 2 and declared that there were dues of the applicant-respondent 2 of Rs. 8,968.88 as against this petitioner and that respondent 2 was entitled to recover the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the very impugned order would show that the claim of entitlement of the applicant was disputed by the petitioner for which there was no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, namely, the petitioner and as such, according to him, in view of law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and An...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Saraf Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
P.K. Deb, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-2000 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Munger in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1999 (7/2000) affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge II, Munger in Title Suit No. 219/87. Thus, the present Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.2. The suit was filed by the Respondent 1st Party for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession from the Defendant-tenant. It was admitted from both the sides that the property in question belonged to one Sarswati Devi. She died in the year 1967 leaving behind her daughter, Bhagwati Devi and the Defendant-tenant admitted that they were tenant under Bhagwati Devi. Bhagwati Devi died issueless in the year 1984 and the plaintiff claims to be the heir of Bhagwati Devi. The genealogy runs as follows.3. One Shiv Narain had two sons namely Hardwari Mall and Gulab Maharaj. Gulab Maharaj died issueless. They had a sis...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Baba Construction
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Ashok Kumar Verma, J.1. The Defendants-Appellants have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-4-1993 passed in Title Suit No. 43 of 1988 by the Sub-ordinate Judge, I, Khagaria, whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge has decreed the Suit of the plaintiff-respondent and made the Award rule of the Court. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge has held that the Plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount of Rs. 69,492/- with interest at the State of Bank of India rate from 30-11 -1988 till the date of realisation.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Khagaria, for appointment of an arbitrator to give his award in respect of the claim of the plaintiff and to make it a rule of the Court. According to the plaintiff, Baba Construction, it had filled up tender for F.D.R. work Badla Nagar Para embankment in Paharpur and his rate was approved and the work was allotted to him at an estimated cost of Rs. 03,04,067.61 P. An agreement to thi...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Mahendra Pratap Singh @ Mahendra Singh and anr. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the licensing authority, namely, the Collector, Rohtas, contained in Annexure 2, whereby licenses of the petitioners for rifle and gun respectively have been suspended.2. It appears that the petitioners preferred appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, which, being barred by limitation, has also been dismissed, vide order dated 5-2-2001. Contained in Annexure-5.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact, there is no delay in filing of the appeal from he date when the order of the Collector was made available to them. However, as a matter of abundant caution, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay of seven-eight days, which has been rejected by the Commissioner without assigning any reason. He submitted that in fact, the order of the Collector itself is bad in law as the petitioners were not given any opportunit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »