Patna Court November 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B.S. Enterprises Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Aftab Alam, J.1. Whether Rule 56 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rule, 2005 can be so read as to give the prescribed authority the discretion to extend, in appropriate cases, the period for furnishing details of stocks for claiming input tax credit under Section 16(1)(d) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005? This is the common question arising in all the four writ petitions.2. The petitioners in the four cases pray for answering the question in the affirmative and on their behalf, it is submitted that any other view would render Rule 56 bad & illegal for being destructive of the right granted by Section 16(1)(d) of the Act. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintains that the answer to the question can only be in the negative, otherwise it would amount to substituting the Court's will for the mandate of the law.3. The facts and circumstances in which the above question arises can be briefly described as follow. On 2.3.2005, the Governor of Bihar promulgated Bihar Value Added Tax Ordinanc...
Sajjan Kumar Paswan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.9.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 16149 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the claim for dealership made by the original writ petitioner, respondent No. 7 herein, came to be allowed.2. With a view to appreciating the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal and challenge against it, let thee be material projection of facts having relevance and bearing on the point in issue.3. Respondent No. 2 The Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Corporation) had issued an advertisement which was published in the newspaper inviting applications for the grant of retail dealership for various places including Saharsa town which is the bone of contention in this Letters Patent Appeal. The original respondent No. 9, the present appellant, the original writ petitioner, respondent No. 7 herein and others applied for the same. The process of selection was undertaken...
Deoki Nandan Kejriwal, Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. The present four Writ applications have been taken up together and with the consent of the parties have been heard at the stage of admission itself for final disposal as they all involved similar facts and common question of law.2. In the four Writ applications the challenge is the order passed by respondent No. 2, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, dated 8.12.2004. The said order has been passed in four revision applications preferred by Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer being Revision Case Nos. 191,193,192 and 190 of 2004 respectively. All the four revision applications were disposed of by the said common order. By the said order the revision applications were allowed and while setting aside the order of subordinate authority i.e. Commissioner of Bhagalpur and the Collector, Bhagalpur, it was held that the petitioners were liable to pay interest under Section 17 of the Bihar Public Demand Recover, Act, 1940 (hereinafter...
Ram Autar Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. This application is directed against the order dated 17.6.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Case No. 364(C) of 1992 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to reject the prayer of the complainant to examine the complainant and Doctor in this case who are said to be material witnesses in the case.2. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, stating therein that while the petitioner was sowing paddy on 27.7.1992 the accused persons who are opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 armed with deadly weapon came and uprooted the paddy crops. This petitioner Anil Mandal and Raghunandan Mandal protested. The accused persons started assaulting the complainant party. Rameshwar Pandit assaulted Raghu Nandan Mandal with lathi on head and Gobardhan Pandi assaulted in hand.-Ram Bilash Pandit. Sheo Nandan Pandit and. Antram Pandit assaulted Anil Mandal with lathi and Khanti. The villagers ca...
Bipul Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application for quashing the order dated 24.9.2005 passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah by which the Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 304 of the I.P.C. The application also seeks for quashing the entire criminal prosecution in G.R. No. 2661 of 2004/ 2485 of 2005 arising out of Nawadah Town P.S. Case No. 360 of 2004 dated 13.12.2004 under Section 304 of the I.P.C.2. On 13.12.2004 one Sabo Devi lodged a fardbeyan alleging therein that the petitioner came to the informant's house and told the informant's husband that there was break down of electricity in his house. The allegation is that the petitioner forcibly took the informant's husband who was electric 'mistry', for repair of the electric line from the transformer. The husband of the informant, namely, Indradeo Bishwakarma @ Khokha Mistri while reparing the electric line got electrocuted and died. In the aforesaid fardbeyan, it is stated that the ten...
Mukesh D. Ambani and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.2. The criminal complaint was lodged under Sections 403, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on 15-4-2005. While the case is still pending, the complainant filed an application dated 1-10-2005 in which he has made a prayer to the Court below that the offence against the accused should be permitted to be compounded as they come within the purview of Section 320 part-II of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate has passed the order on the application filed by the complainant on 7-10-2005 in which he has said that the offence cannot be compounded as they are warrant triable.3. I do not think that a correct view has been taken by the judicial Magistrate. If the complainant wants to compound the case and the provision is there under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He should be permitted to do so. The complainant imply does not want to proceed with the case. The seco...
Rekha Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.08.2006, by which the State Election Commissioner allowed Case No. 28 of 2006 filed by Kiran Kumari (respondent No. 7), holding that the date of birth of Rekha Kumari (petitioner) was 16.11.1985 and hence she having not completed 21 years of age, was neither eligible at the time of filing nomination paper for the post of Member of Goitha Panchayat on 09.03.2006, nor was she eligible at the time of filing nomination paper for the post of Pramukh of Banke Bazar Panchayat Samiti on 28.06.2006 and consequently after setting aside the elections of the petitioner directed the aforesaid posts to be vacant.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the programme for elections having been declared and nominations from the members having been invited by the Bihar State Elec...
Ram Eqbal Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and the learned JC to Standing Counsel No. 2 (Ceiling).2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.6.2000 (Annexure-6) passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision case No. 34 of 1999 dismissing the revision filed by him and for a further direction to restore the order dated 17.10.1996 of the DCLR, Gaya passed in Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1996-97.3. The case of the petitioner is that original respondent No. 6 Sundari Devi (since substituted by her heirs) had purchased the land of old Khata No. 37, Plot No. 168, new R.S. khata No. 54 plot No. 268 area 38 decimals through registered deed of sale bearing No. 6196 dated 12.4.1981 from Ram Kishore Singh and came into possession. The respondent No. 5, Sudama Devi purchased the said land on 29.7.1994 through registered sale deed No. 12148 on 28.11....
Dasrath Mehtar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Barin Ghosh, J.1. In the instant writ petition the Petitioner Dasrath Mehtar, by caste a Scheduled Caste, has come up with a complain that after having had made him to work as a Mehtar, i.e. Sweeper from 1983 until 16th October, 2004, he has been unceremoniously thrown out from his service. On behalf of the Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, initially a counter affidavit was filed. In that it was stated that the post in which the petitioner was working is not a sanctioned post.2. Rule 151 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules read with Appendix-H thereto furnishes the guidelines for making appointment to Ministerial or other posts in Bihar. The said rule and the said appendix do not authorise appointment in a non-sanctioned post, although requirement of publication of notification may be suspended temporarily in cases of urgency. In such view of the matter, it appeared to the Court that an appointment of the nature as given to the writ petitioner could not be given, for a post cannot re...
Awadh Mahto @ Awadhesh Prasad @ Awadh Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. All the three appeals arise out of the same judgment and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Accused Sumundri Devi, Mamta Devi, Bachchi Devi and Baliram Mahto besides appellants Birbal Mahto, Uday Prasad @ Udal Mahto and Awadh Mahto were charged for intentionally causing the death of Subodh Kumar in prosecution of their common object, punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Nagina Mahto has been charged for committing the murder of Subodh Kumar, whereas Ganauri Mahto since deceased and appellants Kishun Mahto stand charged for abeting his murder punishable under Section 302 and Section 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. All the appellants have also been charged for possessing unlicenced fire arms, such as, rifles and guns punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant Udal Mahto and Birbal Prasad have also been charged for causing - hurt to Chandrabhushan ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »