Patna Court March 2005 Judgments
Marico Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. The sole petitioner in both the cases is the same and a registered company under the Companies Act and it is engaged in sale/marketing of consumer products including edible Parachute Coconut Oil and it also manufactures other edible oil under different brands. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act and Central Act respectively).2. The petitioner has filed the writ applications for quashing the assessment order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna South Circle, Patna under Section 17(3) of the Bihar Act for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 by which the Parachute Coconut Oil, the product sold by the petitioner has been charged the sales tax at the rate of 12% in terms of Entry No. 245 instead of 9% as provided under Entry No. 63 and the orders dated 31.8.2003 and 1.7.2003 passed by the Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Vs. the Bihar School Examination Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Singh No. II for the petitioner, Mr. J.P. Shukla for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad for respondent No. 4 (State of Bihar).2. According to the wit petition, the petitioner had submitted his application dated 9.12.1998 through N.K. High School, Baharampur, Patna, as a private candidate to appear at the Matriculation Examination. The application was scrutinised by the Board and the admit card was issued whereby he was allotted Roll No. 1008, photocopy whereof is marked Annexure 1 to the writ petition The examinations commenced on 9.2.1999, but the petitioner's result along with other private candidates of this school has been withheld. On the basis of the enquiry, the Board issued the impugned order, vide letter No. 5415 dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure 3), addressed to the Headmaster of the school, cancelling the candidature of such private students including the petitioner. The writ petition has therefore, been preferred for a d...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Naresh Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as Headmaster of the School from the date of its take-over and for quashing the order dated 20th September, 1999 (Annexure-15) whereby the claim made by him has been rejected.2. This case has a chequered history. Petitioner claims that in pursuance of the resolution of the Managing Committee of Chandra Jyoti Middle School, Larua in the district of Samastipur, by order dated 16.7.1971 (Annexure-1), he was appointed as such by the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Chandra Jyoti Middle School, hereinafter referred to as the School, was an unaided Middle School at that particular point of time. By order dated 3rd of August, 1978 (Annexure-3), the school in question was taken over with its three trained teachers. Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed C.W.J.C. No. 704 of 1983, Ram Naresh Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors....
Tag this Judgment!Sabitri Devi Vs. Rangnath Tiwary and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Mridula Mishra, J.1. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29-6-2000/30-6-2000 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Patna in Revision case Nos. 368/95, 369/95 and 370/ 95 as three revision applications were allowed by the Director, Consolidation, by a common order (Annexure-7).2. The order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that(i) the revision application preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should not have been entertained by the Director, Consolidation, as the revision applications were preferred by them against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without preferring any appeal. As such, the order is without jurisdiction.(ii) the revisional order is without jurisdiction as it has been passed with respect to the property which is the subject-matter of First Appeal No. 504 of 1985 which is pending but on a wrong presumption that First Appeal No. 504 of 1985 is dismissed the revisional order has been passed.(iii) the...
Tag this Judgment!Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Reserve Bank of India and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Binod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate for the Reserve Bank of India, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as RBI).2. Petitioner, Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Siwan has filed this writ application assailing the directions issued by the RBI under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.12.2004, Annexure 3 restraining the petitioner-Bank from accepting fresh deposit, including deposits in the Savings/Current Accounts, Fixed/Recurring Deposit is also restraining the withdrawal of any sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/- from the bank and further restraining the bank from making any, expenditure, except the salary, rent, electric bills, purchasing stationery and other legal expenses.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the aforesaid directions, submitted that the petitioner-bank was established even before enactment of the Act. Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder a decision was taken by the disciplinary authority for compulsory retirement of the petitioner by way of punishment.2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner by virtue of the order, as contained in Annexure 4 dated 9th November, 1999 joined at Darbhanga on his transfer from Aurangabad on the post of Supply Inspector. While the petitioner was working on the post of Supply Inspector at Darbhanga, he was directed to discharge, his duties as Supply Inspector for Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks and! in the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide order, as contained in annexure 9 dated 21st June, 2002 for the charges that the petitioner performed his duties at Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks by remaining at Darbhanga and further oni the; Charge that he absented from d...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Babu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure-4) whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner's father was an Operation Assistant and at the relevant time, posted in the Subdivisional Hospital, Sheohar who died while in service on 22.1.2000. After his death, petitioner filed application in the prescribed proforma (Annexure-1) claiming appointment on compassionate ground and in Column No. 3 of serial No. 5, he stated that the wife of the public servant dying in harness, that is, the petitioner's mother, is working in the Subdivisional Hospital. Claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and ultimately, by order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure-2), petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. It is common ground that the petitioner's mother at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Faiyaz Ahmad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard.2. Petitioner who served on the relevant date as cashier-cum-store keeper in the Western Koshi Canal Division, Andhratharhi, has filed this application questioning the correctness and the validity of the order bearing memo No. 1657, dated 28.7.1999, annexure-1, whereunder he has been dismissed from service after conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated against him on the charge of interpolating three cheques issued by the Executive Engineer of the said division and, thereby, defrauding the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- and further caused loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 2,67,900/- on account of removal of the National Saving Certificates and passbook kept in his custody. He further withdrew the amount of Rs. 34,534 & 19,214.50 paise on the basis of forged bills submitted by him.3. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 28.7.1999, annexure-1, on the ground that in compliance of the directions of this Court dated...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh for the petitioner, learned junior counsel to Government Pleader No. VIII for respondent No. 1 (The State of Bihar), and Mr. J.P. Shukla for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Bihar School Examination Board and its functionaries).2. Two petitioners have joined this writ petition to set aside letter No. 5415, dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure 12 series) to the extent it concerns the petitioners and for a further direction to the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') to issue marks-sheets and the certificates of the petitioners, results whereof have already been published.3. According to the writ petition, the petitioners had appeared at the Matriculation Examination of 1999 held by the Board as a private candidates of N.K. High School, Brahampur, Masaurhi, district Patna. Petitioner No. 1 (Ajit Kumar) was allotted Roll No. 938, and petitioner No. 2 (Dip Himanshu Dip) was allotted Roll No. 937. Their Admit-cards are...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Yadav and anr. Vs. Ratna Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. The petitioners seeks revision or order dated 05.9.2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Madhubani, by which he rejected the petition of the petitioners (defendants No. 1 and 5) for recalling order dated 26.11.2002, whereby the petitioners were debarred from filing the written statement in Title Suit No. 135 of 2001 and refused to accept the written statement filed by them. Although the petitioners are themselves to be blamed, as the written statement, for which permission had been granted, had not been filed within the time and this was the reason for refusal of the Court to accept the written statement after the time was over.2. However, it is submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the father and petitioner No. 2 is the son and the delay had occurred due to the ailment of petitioner No. 1, during which period the petitioner No. 2 was looking after the father. No doubt, the petitioners having appeared on 20.5.2002 did not file their written statement till 26....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »