Court : Patna
prasun kumar deb, j.1. this civil revision application has been preferred by the above-named defendants no. 2 and 3 of title suit no. 7 of 1994 regarding part of the order dated 7.3.1994 passed by the munsif at seraikella and then confirmed by the 4th additional district judge, chaibasa, in miscellaneous appeal no. 3 of 1994 by which temporary injunction granted in favour of the original plaintiff-respondent has been maintained. the other part of the order regarding amalgamation of the above mentioned suit with title suit no. 32 of 1992 has not been challenged.2. the original plaintiff smt. jamuna naik alias bodo devi @ savitri devi title suit no. 7 of 1994 before the court of munsif at seraikella for a relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 4.4.1975 executed by her brother defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 in respect of the suit lands as described in the schedule of the plaint was illegal, void and inoperative and without consideration and was not binding upon the original plaintiff. there was further prayer for a decree for confirmation of possession having legitimate half share in the suit property and alternatively for recovery of possession and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants no. 2 and 3 from interfering/disturbing the plaintiff's possession and with her legitimate right of enjoyment of the suit lands.3. it was the case of the plaintiff sabitri devi that she and her brother defendant no. 1 inherited the suit .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.k. katriar and s.m.m. alam, jj.1. the two appellants challenge the judgment dated 11.7.1988, passed by the learned sessions judge, begusarai, in sessions case no. 480 of 1986 (state of bihar v. arbind mahton and anr.), whereby they have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34, as well as section 201 of the ipc, and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the ipc, and five years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 of the ipc. both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. learned counsel for the appellants did not appear in spite of repeated calls. we have, therefore, appointed mrs. rina sinha, advocate, to assist us as amicus curiae.3. the fardbeyan (exhibit-2) of one sitaram mahto (p.w.2) was recorded with begusarai police station, wherein it was alleged that his sister, geeta devi, was married to appellant no. 2 (arbind mahto) about three years ago. appellant no. 2 is the son of appellant no. 1. the second marriage rsaxk had taken place on 28.12.1982, whereafter she was continuously living in her sasural. the appellants had ever since the time of marriage demanding a bicycle and a watch, but they were unable to provide the same because of their poverty. at the time of second marriage rsaxk ganesh mahto, brother of appellant no. 1 had once again demanded the two items. the informant had expressed his inability to provide the same at that point of time but assured .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
b.m. lal, c.j.1. the petitioner-assessee m/s, tata iron and steel co. ltd., which is a public limited company, having its registered office at 24, homi mody street, fort, bombay-400 023, head sales office at calcutta, and stockyards in various states in india, is primarily engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, factory at jamshedpur in the state of bihar, and is a registered dealer under the bihar sales tax act bearing registration no. j.r. 1 (r) to j.r. 1 (vi) r. and under central sales tax act bearing registration no. j.r. 1 (c), as the goods manufactured by the company are moved from its steel plant at jamshedpur to its stockyards in another states in the regular course of business and as the company sells its products from jamshedpur and stores in the different stockyards from where the products are supplied to its customers in another state, has filed these two petitions for quashing the revised assessment order dated 4.9.80 as contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition as also the demand notice dated 9.9.80 as contained in annexure 2 issued in pursuance of annexure 1 for payment of rs. 2,10,19,242.25 (rupees two crores ten lakhs nineteen thousand two hundred forty two and paise twenty five) only.2. the writ petition (cwjc no. 727 of 1980-r) relates to bihar sales tax and cwjc no. 728 of 1980-r relates to central sales tax-both for the assessment year 1974-75. this judgment will govern the disposal of both cwjc nos. 727 of 1980 (r) and 728 of 1980 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
ramesh kumar datta, j.1. the petitioners have approached this court for a direction to the respondents-authorities to amend/delete the condition of examination imposed in selection of junior engineer (civil) in advertisement no. 1006 published in daily news paper dated 26.5.2006, as contained in annexure-4 and further to advertise the selection of junior engineers in accordance with the rules and norms for apprenticeship trainees as laid down in the order of the supreme court and this court and also to set aside the said advertisement to the extent of the requirement of holding of examination for those, who have received apprenticeship training.2. the petitioners claim to be apprenticeship trainees a though no details regarding the institutions from which they had received the said training any other details in that regard are mentioned anywhere in the writ petition. earlier, both the petitioners had filed c.w.j.c. no. 10477 of 1998 which was dismissed by order dated 16.9.1999 with a direction to the state government to frame a rule or issue necessary instructions so that in the of appointment to the post of junior engineer (civil) the directive of the apex court in the case of u.p. road transport corporation and anr. v. u.p. parivahan nigam shishukhs berozgar sangh and ors. : air1995sc2152 be strictly adhered to.3. learned counsel or the petitioners submits that one of the directions in the said case was that the trained apprentice shall not be required to appear in written .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
aftab alam, j. 1. in this set of seven connected cases relating to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1980-81, a common question of law has been referred to this court by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, on a direction given by the supreme court at the instance of the assessee. the question of law on which decision is to be given by this court was framed by the supreme court in the following terms : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the income mentioned in article iii(a) of the collaboration agreement accrued or arose in india to wean united within the meaning of section 5(2)(b) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' hindustan steel limited, a government of india undertaking (which was in existence at that time), entered into an agreement with united engineering and foundry company, u.s.a., for acquisition of technical know-how for the design and manufacturing of rolling mills and auxiliary equipment. the 'collaboration agreement' being the subject-matter of this reference was executed in india on february 11, 1969, on behalf of hindustan steel limited. it came into effect on april 1, 1969, and continued in operation for a period of ten years from that date. while the agreement was subsisting hindustan steel limited was succeeded by metallurgical and engineering consultants limited ('mecon' for short), the assessee presently before this court. the other party to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
aftab alam, j.1. this writ petition is filed, challenging the notification dated 3.10.2001 (annexure 1) by which the state government constituted the shia waqf board ('the board', hereinafter) and nominated its members as provided under section 14 of the waqf act, 1995 (hereinafter, the 1995 act').2. this case has a brief history and in order to understand the matter clearly, it will be useful to take note of a few antecedent facts. the last board which was ale to complete a full term was constituted by the state government by notification, dated 1.10.1992, issued under the waqf act, 1954 (hereinafter the 1954 act). by this notification the petitioner was nominated as one of the members and he later became the chairman of the board. under section 12 of the 1954 act the members of the board would hold office of a term of five years. hence, on expiry of this period, the state government reconstituted the board and nominated its members by notification dated 31.12.1997 issued under section 64(1) of the 1954 act. in this notification too, the petitioner was named as one of the members. but he did not accept his nomination and respondent no. 3 was elected as the chairman of the board by the rest of the members.3. the petitioner then filed cwjc no. 814 of 1998 challenging the notification, dated 31.12.1997 on the ground that it was issued under a non-existent provision. it was contended that the 1995 act had come into force with effect from 1.1.1996 and as a consequence the 1954 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
p.k. deb, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-19 86 passed by the 8th additional district judge, munghyer, in title appeal no. 44 of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26-9-1981 passed by the munsif-i, munghyer, in title suit no. 38/6 of 1975-80.2. at the admission stage under order xli, rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, the respondents have been noticed and heard both the parties on merit also. the plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land appertaining to plot no. 121, khata no. 55, touzi no. 4884 of mouza ramchandrapur p.s. jamalpur within the district of munghyer as described in schedule-ii of the plaint. the area of the suit land is 17 decimals towards north. the admitted position remains that one gohan sab was the original owner of the whole of the suit plot measuring 34 decimals. he left behind two sons sonu and chhathu. sonu left the place and settled at midnapur in the state of west bengal and chhathu remained in the place and was managing the property. chhathu died leaving behind two sons panchu and rameshwar. the defendants are the heirs of ranchu and rameshwar and also the purchasers from chhathu's heir in the year 1968. according to the plaintiffs, sonu died leaving behind two sons mahadeo and sukhdeo, sukhdeo died issueless and mahadeo died leaving his wife sharda devi and one son jagdish. the plaintiffs are the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, there is challenge to the constitutional validity of sections 269ss and 271d of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'). these two sections may be set out as under : '269ss. mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits.--no person shall, after the 30th day of june, 1984, take or accept from any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account payee bank draft if,-- (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit ; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid ; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more : provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit taken or accepted from, or any loan or deposit taken or accepted by,-- (a) government ; (b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank ; (c) any corporation established by a central, state or provincial act ; (d) any government company as defined in section 617 of the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (e) such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
deoki nandan prasad, j.1. this application has been filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure by the sole petitioner for quashing of the order dated 21-10-2000 by which the learned chief judicial magistrate, chas, bokaro has rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 167(2) of the criminal procedure code.2. the short facts giving rise to the application that the petitioner has been made an accused in chandankyari ps case no. 66 of 2000 for the offence under sections 379, 411, 414, 386 and 34 of the indian penal code. it was alleged that illegal mining work is being carried on and the local criminals are involved in extortion of rs. 50-100/- each truck passing through manpur chowk and bhojudih more. on this information, the police officials reached manpur chowk and saw a number of bags containing coal but the people gathered there already fled away.on enquiry from the local people, they came to know that the accused-persons including the petitioner were involved in the extortion and illegal mining of coal. on the basis of the said statement, the f.i.r. was lodged against the accused-persons including the petitioner. the petitioner was apprehended and remanded in the case but charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days of the remand. thereafter, a petition for release under section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure was filed, but the learned magistrate rejected the petition by the impugned order on a wrong assumption .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
gurusharan sharma, j.1. plaintiff-opposite party filed eviction suit no. 373 of 1989 against the defendant-petitioners for their eviction from the suit premises described in schedule a to the plaint. according to the plaintiff, the defendants were inducted in the suit premises as tenant in the year 1979 and they continued as such till 8.9.1987. thereafter on 9.9.1987 a registered lease was executed between the parties for a period of 24 months, commencing from 9.9.1987 and ending on 8.9.1989. before expiry of the said lease, the defendants did not serve any notice to the plaintiff exercising their right conferred under section 18 of the bihar buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act' for short) and after expiry of the lease on 8.9.1989 they did not vacate the house. the plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 3.10.1989 to the defendants requesting them to vacate the suit premises. but they did not vacate the same and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for eviction under section 11(1)(e) of the act.2. the defendants contested the suit. according to them, the suit premises was let out to the defendant no. 1 more or less 20 years back and from time to time the rate of rent was illegally enhanced by giving threats. in the year 1987 the plaintiff has by practising fraud and coercion got the lease deed registered for a fixed period of two years, though the defendantno. 1 continued to be month to month .....
Tag this Judgment!