Patna Court September 2001 Judgments
Mahakali Milling Company (P) Ltd. Vs. the Bihar State Electricity Boar ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
N. Nair, J. 1. The petitioner -- a Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of Flour Mills, has filed the present writ application for quashing the Annual Minimum Guarantee Bill dated 29-6-2001, issued by the Revenue Officer of the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') for the period 2000-2001 and for a direction to the Board and its Officers to charge the amount of Minimum Guarantee at the contract load of 200 KVA and further for a direction to them to make a formal agreement for the reduced load for future consumption of electricity. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it has taken a High Tension Industrial Connection (for short 'HT connection') for running its business. Earlier on 1-10-1988, the petitioner was given an H.T. Service connection on a contract demand of 100 KVA. The capacity of the transformer of the petitioner was 500 KVA. As the capacity of the trans-former was beyond the permissible limit of 150 KVA, the same was in ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Llliyas and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
P.N. Yadav, J.1. The appellant Md. lliyas was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, seven years and two years respectively under Sections 148, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code), the appellant Abdul Halim was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, two years and seven years respectively under Sections 307, 148 and 326 of the Code and the appellants Israel Shah, Md. Bhullah, Hare Ram Rai, Nayeem Mian, Shamim Mian, Bhola Rai, Mahavir Yadav and Domi Rai were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and one year each respectively under Sections 307/149 and 147 of the Code vide the judgment and order dated 5-4-1990 passed by Sri Bal Govind Prasad, III, Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in sessions trial Number 25 of 1984.2. It would be relevant and convenient to reproduce, in brief, the facts of the case. The informant Mazloom Mian (P.W. 1)...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
1. Penalty proceedings under the provisions of Section 271B of the IT Act, 1961 (in show the Act) were initiated against the assesses, since she allegedly failed to file the audit report on or before the due date of filing the return for the asst. yr. 1997-98, that-is, before 31st Oct., 1997. In response to the show-cause notice issued, she filed her written explanation wherein she claimed that audit report was sent by her on 25th Oct., 1997, by post under certificate of posting. This explanation did not find favours with the taxing authorities and a penalty of Rs. 41,768 was imposed on her vide order dt. 25th March 1999. She assailed the said order before the CIT(A), who declined her appeal vide his order dt. 7th Nov., 2000. Now the assessee seeks indulgence of this Tribunal by way of this second appeal, claiming that the orders of the learned lower authorities are not in consonance with the provisions of law.2. When the appeal came up for hearing Shri R.M. Kumar, advocate had advanc...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jyoti Agarwal Vs. Ito
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Dr. R.K. Yadav, J.M.Penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against the assessee, since she allegedly failed to file the audit report on or before the due date of filing the return for the assessment year 1997-98, that is, before 31-10-1997. In response to the show-cause notice issued, she filed her written explanation wherein she claimed that audit report was sent by her on 25-10-1997, by post under certificate of posting. This explanation did not find favours with the taxing authorities and a penalty of Rs. 41,768 was imposed on her vide order dated 25-3-1999. She assailed the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who declined her appeal vide his order dated 7-11-2000. Now the assessee seeks indulgence of this Tribunal by way of this second appeal, claiming that the orders of the learned lower authorities are not in consonance with the provisions of law.2. When the appeal came up...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and JC to AAG II for the respondents.2. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters to them as they were selected for appointment on the post of Assistant in the Secretariat and its attached offices pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 1993.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that process of selection and verification etc. was already completed way back in April 2001 and, for some how or the other, the petitioners have not been appointed in spite of direction of this Court dated 30-11-1999, passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8697 of 1997.4. My attention has been drawn to the earlier direction of this Court passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8697 of 1997. It appears that this Court firstly directed the authorities to identify the vacancies and thereafter Bihar Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, learned senior Counsel for the2. The question involved in this writ application is as to whether on the point of difference by the disciplinary authority with the inquiry report, an opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the delinquent.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding and during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, he was put under suspension. In the departmental proceeding the inquiry report as contained in Annexure 7, was submitted to the disciplinary authority saying that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved and, therefore, he recommended for his exoneration from the departmental proceeding. On receipt of the enquiry report, as contained in Annexure-7, the disciplinary authority vide order, as contained in Annexure 9, differed with the same and imposed certain punishments upon the...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ali Qambar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and JC to SC 9 for the respondent-State.2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire departmental proceeding in Departmental Proceeding No. 1 of 1993 and also the interim order of suspension, as contained in Memo No. 1325 dated 19-11-1991, putting the petitioner under suspension with effect from 16-11-1991 and also for holding that the entire disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner vitiated for nonpayment of subsistence allowance to him for the period of suspension.3. Short facts giving rise to this application are as follows:It appears that while the petitioner was on deputation in CID (Food), Gopalganj, he remained absent without due permission and even he stayed away from election duties. In that view of the matter, he was put under suspension vide order, as contained in Annexure 1 dated 19-11-1991 with effect from 16-11-1991 and Departmental Proceeding No. 1 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil Deo Yadav Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on an order in C.W.J.C. No. 6976 of 2001; Kapil Deo Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. The order challenged is dated July 25, 2001. 2. The issue which has been presented on the writ petitions upon which the learned Judge was not inclined to agree is thus: The petitioner as a workman has been charged for certain misdemeanours during the course of service. In so far as the charge is concerned, it is not relevant in the present appeal nor it was relevant in the writ petition. The charge was that during a certain meeting of workers and staff the petitioner made objectionable utterances against the management. The Court will leave this aspect at this without reflecting on the merits of the matter. 3. When the domestic enquiry was initiated and the petitioner was served with a charge on May 11, 2001, the petitioner was given an opportunity to present his defence. The petitioner indicated that he would like to be represented by one C...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. (Dr.) Ram Nirajan Kedia and ors. and Vs. the State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. In both these writ petitions the common question of law falling for determination is whether the option once exercised by the petitioners and treated as final under Rule 4 of the Statutes governing retirement benefits, dated 24-11 -1982 could have been treated by the Syndicate and Vice-Chancellor of the University to be not final so as to give fresh option and entitle the petitioners to the benefit of pension as per Appendix-A of the aforesaid Statutes. Because of the common question of law the Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The relevant facts of both the writ petitions lie within a narrow compass. In CWJC No. 12681 of 2000 all the 8 petitioners are either retired teachers or retired non-teaching employees of the respondent L.N.M. University, Darbhanga. They retired between the year 1994 and 1998 and as per their option exercised in February, 1983 received retrial benefits as per Appendix-B (non pension...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag NaraIn Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
P.N. Yadav, J.1. The appellant Barfi Yadav was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code'), the appellants Prayag Narain Yadav and Chandra Yadav were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years each under Section 324 of the Code and ail the three appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 27 of the Arms Act, both the sentences in respect of all the appellants having been ordered to run concurrently, acquitting the appellants and other accused persons of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Code vide the judgment and order dated 3-5-1990 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1984.2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was, in short as follows. At about 9...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »