Patna Court September 2003 Judgments
Haridwar Pandey Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. During the course of hearing of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 285 of 2003 (Haridwar Pandey v. The State of Bihar) by a Division Bench there arose dispute relating to maintainability of present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both the Hon'ble judges recorded different findings and differed in their conclusion. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha after recording the detailed order observed that the appeal against the order refusing bail under Section 14(4) of the Act would be maintainable under Section 19 of the Act. While Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N.P. Singh by his detailed order observed that the appeal would not be maintainable. In view of the difference in opinion, the matter has came up before me. 3. Before dwelling upon the issue of maintainability it is necessary to record certain facts. One Haridwar Pandey S/0 Late Ramdutt Pandey had filed Gr. Misc. No. 21709 of 2003. In the said matter, the appellant/a...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Nath Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
S.K. Katriar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12-1-2000 (Annexure 4), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 240 of 1997 Dinanath Prasad v. Ramagya Sah, whereby he has dismissed the revision application of the present petitioner (pre-emptor). It relates to proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Original respondent No. 8 Smt. Gangorti Devi, since deceased, whose heirs are on record as respondent Nos. 8 (A) to (F) had alienated 3 khatas & 10 dhurs each, in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, being portions of plot No. 354, appertaining to khata No. 25, situate at village Sayedpura, district Siwan i.e. governing a total area of 10 khatas and 10 dhurs, by three separate deeds of absolute sale executed on 12-2-1982, and registered on 19-2-1982. Respondent No. 8 had alienated 4 dhurs of the same plot in favour of Ram Lakshman Shah, executed and re...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Saralee Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
1. Common questions of facts and law are involved in all the three cases and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. C.W.J.C. No. 2019 of 2003 has been filed challenging the orders of assessment dated January 2, 2003 passed Under Section 17(2) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the assessment year 2001-2002 (as contained in annexure 11 series). C.W.J.C. No. 2022 of 2003 has been filed challenging the orders of assessment dated January 2, 2003 passed under the aforesaid provision for the assessment year 2000-2001 (as contained in annexure 11 series). C.W.J.C. No. 2957 of 2003 has been filed challenging the assessment orders dated December 28, 2002 and January 25, 2003 passed under the aforesaid provision for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 (as contained in annexure 3 series).3. Admitted fact is that remedy of appeal and revision is available to the petitioner against the impugned orders under the provisions of the Act.4. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarwar Alam Vs. Jawahar Turha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
P.K. Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiff/ appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Sub-Judge, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 100 of 1977 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed by the second Additional Munsif, Buxar in Title Suit No. 97/31 of 1971 -76 has been reversed and the plaintiff's suit has been held to be not maintainable. 2. The suit house Plot No. 1049 and 1050 having measured 16 dhurs and 16 decimals and 10 dhurs and odd respectively have been claimed by the plaintiff and declaration has been sought regarding her title and also for confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession. Admittedly the suit property belonged to one Abdul Hakim alias Bordhu Mian and Abdul Hamid alias Sahtu Mian sons of Ghafoor Mian of Dumraon, town and soon after partition of the country went to Pakistan in the year 1949 and the said property became Evacuee property and it came in possession of the custodian. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Md. Perwez Ahmad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The Tribunal after having considered the materials on record has found that Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not attracted in the case for the reason that in this case credit in the books of account of the assessee-firm is on account of introduction of capital by the partners and the firm has failed to prove the amount credited in the books of account and as such it would be assessed in the hands of the partners as unexplained investment.3. In view of the aforesaid finding, in our view, no substantial question of law arises in this case warranting interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Smt. Lily Tobias
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
1. The only question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the undisclosed income of a particular block period if not taxable would be treated as an undisclosed income on non-filing of the return. It is an admitted position that with effect from July 1, 1995, the amendment has been made in Section 158BC of the Finance Act which clearly provides that if the income of the particular assessment year falling within the block period is not taxable the same shall not be treated to be undisclosed income. No doubt in this case some orders in a block period are prior to July 1, 1995, but taking into consideration the facts of this case, the intention of the Legislature as evident from amendment and in the facts of the case, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for determination. So far as the other points are concerned, they are concluded by findings of facts arrived at on appreciation of evidence. In the result, no case for interference is made out under ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Yadav and ors. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and or ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
1. Counsel for the appellant undertakes to make necessary correction in the appeal during the course of the day. Such of those party-respondents amongst workers, who have not been arrayed as proforma respondents, will be incorporated today.2. Heard both sides.3. If there were no other issues pending in the writ petition and the award had been challenged solely on the ground that it was incapable of execution, then this Court would have passed the final order even on the writ petition and in this letters patent appeal to do substantial justice to reach the benefits to the workmen. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the award, the case in which it was made and the manner in which it has been rendered on one point, should the petition fail the award cannot be executed.4. If an application were to be filed by the workmen under Section 33C(1) that the monies which are due to them in terms of an award be delivered as recovery of monies due from the employer, in the present case, an imme...
Tag this Judgment!Sitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard respective Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel No. 1 for the State. 2. All these writ applications have been filed for common cause, as the petitioners have been terminated from their services after serving under the respondents for more than a decade. 3. The facts involved in all these cases are identical, therefore, individual case are not required to be scrutinised separately, and, accordingly, these writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 4. According to the cases of the petitioners, some of them were appointed directly on Class III posts and Class IV posts and some of them were regularised from daily wages to Class IV posts. The majority of the petitioners continued in services for more than 10 years on regular basis, their service books etc. were opened and they were made permanent and some of them were granted time bound promotions. M...
Tag this Judgment!Md. NizamuddIn and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and Shashank Kr. Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against an order of 31st July, 2003. The order was passed on two writ petitions C.W.J.C. No. 1342 of 1999 : Shashi Bhushan Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 1374 of 1999: Md. Nizamuddin and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.2. All the petitioners to whom the order of 31st July, 2003 is applicable have not filed a Letters Patent Appeal. This appeal has been filed only by Md. Nizamuddin and Babujee Kamat. They were initially appointed as Canal Mates, a work charge grade IV employees, in 1979.3. In the counter-affidavit to the writ petition it is explained that the appointment on a work charge post is accepted. Thus, there is no issue that the petitioners had not been appointed. There is also no issue that the petitioners were given work on the post of a Grade III regular establishment as typists subsequently in 1981. It was discovered later on that as the petitioners were giv...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar Mayor Council Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. This petition raises two issues on the functioning of local self-government. In the present case, it is about the functioning of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The Patna Municipal Corporation functions under the Patna Municipal Corporation Act 1951. 2. On behalf of the petitioner arguments were submitted by Messrs M.P. Gupta, Advocate and Mihir Kumar Jha, Advocate, each of them had submitted separately. On behalf of the State the submissions were made by Additional Advocate General 2 Mr. S.K. Ghose, Senior Advocate, and Mr. S.A. Hussain, Standing Counsel No. 6. On the day orders were reserved, the Court passed an order recording a summary of the proceedings until final date of hearing. This order is reproduced: 'The Judgment on this case is being reserved today after having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha and Counsel for the State Mr. S.A. Hussain, S.C. 6. On the last occasion when this matter was listed, the Court had made it cl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »