Patna Court July 2006 Judgments
Commissioner, Customs Department Vs. Nirmala Mitra
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Gold bars were seized from the possession of Smt. Nirmala Mitra under reasonable belief that those were smuggled. The authorities passed orders for their confiscation. The matter came to the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal set aside the order and directed release of the gold. The Department has filed this case and is pending before this Court. The learned Tribunal is, in implementation of its order, insisting for release of the gold in favour of the respondent Smt. Nirmala Mitra. The petitioner is not releasing the same in view of the pendency of the present case. The learned Tribunal has passed order dated 24-5-2006 in Misc Application (NI) No. 351 of 2005 against the Commissioner, which prima facie appears to be pre-mature. The Department is apprehensive that because of the strictures passed by the learned Tribunal, the Commissioner may have to face departmental action. In its support, the parties produced the order passed by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Choubey Vs. Dulari Kuer and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Sasaram. As required and provided for it was registered as Title Suit No. 135 of 1985. The said application was for appointment of two Arbitrators in terms of unregistgered partnership deed for taking accounts and rendition thereof. Now, an application has been filed purporting to be an amendment application whereby the prayer has been made for an additional relief. This has been rejected by the trial court with reference to Section 69 of the Partnership Act. This order the plaintiff-petitioner assailed. The defendants are represented.3. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that in the impugned order reference of Section 69 of the Partnership Act denying him the right to amend the suit on the ground that suit is not maintainable is wrong. He further submitted that till now t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›