Patna Court January 2004 Judgments

Bihar State + 2 Lecturers Association and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ...

Court: Patna

S.N. Jha, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to pay scale on Untrained Post Graduate + 2 Lecturers in Nationalised Secondary Schools and the question for consideration is whether they are entitled to the same scale as their trained counterparts.2. The case of the petitioners supported by the intervenes is that in the advertisement, being Advt. No. 1/87, inviting applications for the post of + 2 Lecturers in Secondary Schools, the pay scale of the post was mentioned as Rs. 940-1660/- and they are entitled to the corresponding replacement scale after the pay revision. After the Fifth Pay Revision, by resolution No. 6021 dated 18.12.1988, the existing scale of Rs. 940-1660/- was replaced by the scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-with effect from 1.1.1986. However, by Government order dated 25.8.1990 scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was allowed for Lecturers in+ 2 Government Schools giving rise to anomaly of pay of + 2 Lecturers in the Government Schools and nationalised schools. In the circumstances, t...

Priyanka Pratap Singh Vs. Divisional Manager Ibp Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Patna

Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the list of shortlisted candidates in order of merit dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure-8) for retail outlet of respondent IBP Company limited at the location Goh, District Aurangabad. In the said list Hari Narayan Tripathi (respondent No. 3) has been placed at serial No. 1 and the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 3. According to the petitioner, the selection of respondent No. 3 is wholly arbitrary and mala fide inasmuch as, according to her, he is less deserving candidate than her above all he did not fulfil the pre-requisite criteria for the selection.2. In short, the relevant facts are that the respondent-Company issued notice in 'Hindustan' a Hindi daily published on 6.10.2001 (Annexure-1) inviting offer for appointment of retail outlet/SKO-LDO dealership at various places, including the above mentioned place in question. As per clause 'Kha' of the said advertisement, preference was to be given to thos...

Durga Hotel Complex Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.

Court: Patna

Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In first writ petition, petitioner has sought for direction to the State Bank of India to carry out the directions given to it by the Banking Ombudsman in his order dated 30th March, 2002 in a dispute between the petitioner and the bank and second writ petition has been field by the Bank challenging the said order. Vide order dated 7.4.2003 both these writ petitions were directed to be heard together, and, as such, both these writ petitions have been heard together, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner of the first writ petition, which is a partnership firm applied to the respondent-State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank', for grant of loan in the year 1995 with the total project cost of Rs. 33.33 lacs for construction of Hotel-cum-Shopping Complex. The proposal for a term loan of Rs. 24 lacs was considered at Zonal Office level and was finally rejected on 25.7.199...

Manoj Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner appeared in 42nd Combined Competitive Examination for selection for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector. The examination was conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, here-in-after to be referred as the Commission. The result was published and, thereafter, recommendation was made by the Commission to the Government for appointment. The appointment of some of the candidates was made vide notification dated 30.9.2000, Annexure-1, wherefrom it appears that 110 persons were appointed without any condition any by the same notification about 61 persons were appointed on ad hoc basis for six months with a condition that if nothing would be against their character their services shall be regularised. From the notification, Annexure-1, it further appears that the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes were not appointed in view of the letters dated 1.8.2000 and 19.8.2000 of the Commission. However, the said letters were...

Umesh Chandra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 1. issued vide memo No. 1252 dated 28.07.1998, whereby and whereunder services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 2 dated 31.03.1991, the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Patna and the petitioner continued in services and now without any rhyme or reason he has been terminated. It is further submitted that no specific reason has been mentioned in the order impugned and it is simply stated that his appointment was found to be illegal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the selection of the candidates after cut off date 28.10.1991 has been found to be illegal an...

Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murrah Live Stock Agency

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (2004)91ITD198(Pat.)

1. The appeals of the Revenue for the assessment year 1987-88 to 1989-90 had come up for decision before the Patna Division Bench.However, since there was a difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench, I was nominated by the Hon'ble President as Third Member for a decision in regard to the point of dispute in these appeals of the Revenue.2. The Ld. Members of the Division Bench have identified the point of dispute separately as under:- "Whether registration of a case with the CBI, on the allegation that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 7998500/- from AHD, Govt. of Bihar, without making any supplies and obtaining accommodation entries of purchases against commission and surrounding circumstances, would be sufficient for an AO to form an opinion that on account of non-disclosure of material facts fully and truly income has escaped assessment?" "Whether on the basis of information available on account of registration of charge-sheet by the CBI in the case of assessee's relat...

Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Sri Narendra Mohan Bagroy

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (2004)90ITD90(Pat.)

1. The appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 were heard by Division Bench at Patna.As a result of difference of opinion of the two Members of the Bench, the Hon'ble President has nominated me as Third Member for a decision in regard to the point of difference between the Ld. Members. The following points have been identified in respect of which there is difference of opinion between the ld. Members:- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred to hold that reopening of the assessment Under Section 147 of the I.T. Act is unjustified and bad in law? (2) Whether on the basis of material collected for the asstt. year 1994-95 that certain creditors were bogus reopening of the assessment for the asstt. year 1993-94 can be made Under Section 147 of the I.T. Act? 2. Parties have been heard and record perused. In order to recapitulate, the relevant facts may be reiterated. The assessee is engaged...

NavIn Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 6.4.1997 whereby the Collector had published the estimated minimum value of the land.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are the residents of village Parsa in the town of Patna and they possess land in that village. The Collector, Patna, by his order dated 6.4,1997 (Annexure-1), estimated the value of the agricultural as also the homestead lands of village Parsa and other villages falling within the district of Patna. The valuation so-fixed was to be made effective from 10th of September, 1997. According to the order, the valuation of homestead and agricultural land of village Parsa was determined at Rs. 5619/- and Rs. 1333/- per katha respectively. It is the stand of the petitioners that the Collector has no such power to determine the value of the land.3. Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitio...

Suresh Prasad Jaiswal and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Jha and B.N.P. Singh, JJ. 1. By this application purportedly filed under Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000 and Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seek-transfer of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 366(M) of 1999 from the Court of Shri P.O. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna to the corresponding Court in the State of Jharkhand in terms of Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act.2. Section 89 of the said act provides for transfer ('shall stand transferred') of proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day i.e. 15th November, 2000 before a Court (other than the High Court), tribunal etc. in any area which on that day falls within the State of Bihar shall, if the proceeding relates exclusively to territory which as from the appointed day is the territory of Jharkhand State, to the corresponding Court, tribunal etc. in the State of Jharkhand.3. The case of the petitioners is that the alleged offence which is the subject ma...

Garib Singh Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. By the judgment and order coming under appeal, the appellant-Garib Singh stands convicted under Sections 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and one year respectively for the two offences; the sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. Before the trial Court, apart from the appellant there were four other accused. The appellant-Garib Singh and co-accused Umesh Singh were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code; the appellant was separately charged under Section 307 of the Penal Code and all the five accused, including the appellant were further charged under Sections 302/34, IPC and 27, Arms Act, while referring to the charges framed against the accused it was noticed that though the date of occurrence in this case was undeniably 13-2-1999, the date mentioned in the charge was 13th day of July, 1999. The mistake is inconsequential and does not affect the case in any manner; it nevertheless show...