Patna Court February 2005 Judgments
Ganga Tractors and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
1. The points involved in all the four cases are one and the same and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners have filed the present writ applications for quashing Memo No. 6771 dated October 27, 2004, annexed as annexure 3 to C.W.J.C. No. 16128 of 2004 whereby the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has clarified the matter that the tractor is primarily used for agricultural purposes and not for the purposes of carrying passengers or goods and as such in the case of tractor there is liability to pay additional tax and surcharge and is not covered by the notifications dated May 22, 2004 issued under Sections 5(4) and 6(2) of the Bihar Finance Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') making amendment in the Schedule attached to the Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department Notification S.O. No. 128 dated July 27, 2000, by which light, medium and heavy motor vehicles with four or more wheels have been exempted from paym...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Kamkar and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
M.L. Visa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 924 of 1992 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each under Section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Case of prosecution, in-short, is that on 4.7.1991 at about 8 a.m., Ram Bachan Rai, husband of informant Sushila Devi (PW 3), after leaving his buffalo in badhar (open space) for grazing, was returning to his house when ten to twelve persons came running from the southern side of village out of them four to five were armed with rifles and guns. On seeing them, husband of informant ran towards his house. In the meantime, appellant Najibullah Mian carrying arm came and asked for catching hold of husband of informant. In the meantime, the persons who were coming running...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
R.S. Garg, J.1. This writ Application has been filed by Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, an Advocate practising in this Court for the following reliefs,--(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring Section 16(1)(2) and (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring Para-A of Chapter-XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.(iii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.2004 (contained in Annexure-1) in so far as it relates to designation of Mr. Vikas Singh, the respondent as Senior Advocate, (iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the High Court the respondent to designate all those Advocates as Senior whose applications for designation have been arbitrarily rejected even though they are as able, experienced and knowledgeable as those whose name appears in the impugned order.2. At the very inception we must record that so far as th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Pd. Agrawal Vs. Shri Sheo Narayan Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the impugned order dated 31.7.2004, by which the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Patna allowed Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2004 and set aside order dated 09.2.2004, by which the learned 3rd Munsif, Patna had dismissed Misc. Case No. 15 of 2003 as not maintainable under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity).2. Petitioner was plaintiff of Title Eviction Suit No. 37 of 2000, which he had filed for eviction of the opposite party on the sole ground of personal necessity and hence the suit proceeded under the provision of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).3. After receipt of notice the defendant-opposite party appeared in the suit and sought leave to contest under Section 14(4) of the Act, which was granted by the Court, whereafter the defendant filed...
Tag this Judgment!Aibunnisha Vs. Masrur Alam
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Petitioner was defendant-judgment-debtor of Title Suit No. 203 of 1985, which was filed by the opposite party for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit premises vide deed of agreement dated 17.9.1984.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.1.2005 by which the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-3, Buxar, had allowed the decree-holder's (O.Ps.) petition for delivery of possession in Execution Case No. 4 of 1993, which was filed for execution of the decree passed in Title Appeal No. 78 of 1987 which had arisen out of the said Title Suit No. 203 of 1985.2. Short fact of this case is that initially the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 94 of 1985 against the opposite party for a declaration that the deed of agreement for sale dated 17.9.1984 was void, fraudulent and forged. Thereafter, the opposite party filed Title Suit No. 203 of 1985 against the petitioner for specific performance of the said contract for sale dated 17.9.1984. Both the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Srikant @ Sanjay Vs. Veena Kumari
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.2. This petition has been filed for review of this Court's order dated 23.9.2004 allowing Civil Revision No. 1002/2002 filed by the opposite party and setting aside impugned order dated 1.6.2002 passed in Divorce Case No. 27/96, by which the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Begusarai had rejected the defendant's (wife) petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the sake of brevity).3. By the order under review this Court had directed the plaintiffs- petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000/- as monthly maintenance pendente lite to the defendant-petitioner alongwith arrears from the date of filing of the divorce case.4. The petitioner, who was opposite party in the revision case raises two points for review of the earlier order of this Court, namely, the quantum of the monthly maintenance pendente lite and the retrospective effect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Hanuman Distributors Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. The petitioner, a dealer in India Made Foreign Liquor (for short IMFL) registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has challenged the assessment order dated 30.6.2003 with regard to assessment period 1999-2000 whereby demand of Rs. 5,47,725/- has been raised on the basis of circular of the Commissioner dated 12th July, 1994 whereby direction has been issued to deduct only sales tax-and not additional tax paid at the immediately preceding stage of the sale from the total sale price in order to arrive at the value added sale price while determining the tax which is to be levied in the hands of the petitioner.2. The case of petitioner is that for determining the liability to pay tax, the sales tax and additional tax paid at the immediately preceding stage of the sale are to be deducted from the total sale price in view of the definition of tax under Section 2(x) of the Act which includes both tax and additional tax. On this gro...
Tag this Judgment!Brajendra Kumar Sinha (Dr.) Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned Govt. Pleader No. VIII for the respondents.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.1.1992 while functioning as Principal of Health & Welfare Training Centre, Bhagalpur. The petitioner complains before this Court that he is being paid 100% of his pension but on provisional basis. He further complains that he is not being allowed commutation of pension, and lastly submits that his TA bills are not being reinbursed. It is further stated that much after the respondent authorities filed their counter affidavit, they have filed a supplementary counter affidavit, placing on record show-cause notice bearing memo No. 912 (9) dated 28.12.98, whereby the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why action in accordance with law be not taken for financial irregularities in purchase of medicines. 3. Learned gov...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
M.L. Visa, J.1. This application by petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties No. 2 to 7 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh on 17.9.2003 and 18.9.2003 in Bakhtiyarpur Police Station Case No. 173 of 2003 initially registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 337 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') but subsequently added with Section 302 of IPC.2. The case of petitioner, in short is that on the basis of his fardbeyan recorded on 11.9.2003 by Bakhtiyarpur Police at Bakhtiyarpur Primary Health Centre that on the same date at about 8.30 a.m. when he went to a well for taking bath, his gotiyas opposite parties No. 2 and 3 did not allow him to take bath saying that the well belonged to them and when he said that he had also share in the well because well was in his land also, the aforesaid opposite parties abused him and called other opposite parties, who are their family members, and opposite party No. 4 was armed with garasa, opposit...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. Ram Binod Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
S.N. Hussian, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 173/1992 which has been filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction as well as other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.8.2003 passed in the aforesaid suit by which learned Subordinate Judge-IV,. Begusarai rejected his petition for amendment of plaint.4. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is quite clear that even the issues have not yet been framed in the suit and the plaintiff wants extensive amendment of his plaint. All the amendments sought by the plaintiff are with respect to the factual aspect of the matter and except relief (D) all the other reliefs sought to be amended are consequent to the amendments of fact sought by the plaintiff. So far the addition of relief (D) is concerned the plaintiff wants to get the sale deed dated 26.12.1989, executed by Ram Binod Singh (defendant No. 1) transferring to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »