Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR1963Pat344
Ramratna Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar against the decision of the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, granting a decree for a sum of Rs. 93,910/10/9, together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit to the Bank of Bihar Ltd., the sole plaintiff, in the suit of which this appeal arises.2. The facts now admitted are these : Under an arrangement with the South Bihai Sugar Mills Ltd., defendant No. 2, that is, the Jagdishpore Zamindary Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) came into possession of the manufacturing section of the Mills at Bihta from the beginning of the crushing season of 1946-47. Defendants 3 to 5 were the Directors of the Company. Early in 1947, the Company entered with the Bank into a cash credit agreement, according to which tha company was to pledge with the Bank the entire stock of sugar manufactured by them in the Mills and to take advances of money from the Bank under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR1969Pat53
Untwalia, J.1. These two appeals have been heard together as the identical question involved in them is whether an employee of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. for the sake of brevity referred to as Tisco Ltd or the Company, is entitled, as a matter of right to get gratuity on his retirement from service. I shall refer separately to the facts of the two cases, which are also similar, and then proceed to discuss and decide the common question which falls for determination in these appeals.F. A. 444/63.2. Tisco Ltd. is the appellant in this appeal. The suit of the employee for gratuity and interest has been decreed by the court below against the appellant which was defendant No. 1 Tata Industries Private Ltd. The Managing Agents of Tisco Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the action. T. V. S. Ratnam, defendant No. 3 was the Head of the Department in which the plaintiff respondent was working at the time of his retirement. The suit has been dismissed against defendants 2 and 3.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2248
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a Company to whom petitioner No. 1 has assigned its debt. Petitioner No. 1 had taken substantial term loan from Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to 'as BICICO'). BICICO is a financial corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.2. Petitioner No. 1 had set up a mini cement plant with the finance made available at Jamshedpur. For various reasons, the plant could not operate economically enough to pay back to BICICO. Petitioner No. 1 was a defaulter. BICICO came up with BICICO ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (TERM LOAN) SCHEME, 2006. The major distinction between this scheme and earlier scheme for One Time Settlement was that once the settlement amount was calculated and communicated, the Unit had an option to either pay it directly or take a loan from a third party and pay to BICICO....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.D. Singh, J.1. This application by Suresh Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 12-4-1973 (Annexure 4) appointing Sharvshri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Khurshid Alam, Nityanand Das and M.P. Srivastava (Respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively), besides others, to the post of Drugs Inspector. The petitioner in the said application has prayed for quashing the appointment of Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and for a direction to the State of Bihar (respondent No. 1) and the Director of Health Services, (respondent No. 2) to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Drugs Inspector.2. In order to appreciate the points involved in this application it will be necessary to state the facts briefly. The petitioner is a bachelor of pharmacy from Benaras Hindu University in Uttar Pradesh. The Government of Bihar in the Health Department through the Bihar Public Service Commission advertised the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1983)6ITD275(Pat.)
1. The appellant-assessee by his present appeals challenges the first consolidated appellate order dated 23-2-1981, of the learned AAC, for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1976-77. The assessee is a resident-individual by status and the valuation dates are the relevant financial years ending 31st March of each year.2. The appeals are against a consolidated order. The facts, circumstances, parties and issues are identical. For the sake of convenience, therefore, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by a single order.3. The first common ground of the assessee's appeals during all the years under consideration is to the following effect: For that the learned Wealth-tax Officer and AAC have erred by now allowing mango orchard as exempt under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act.4. The assessee is said to have purchased 9.19 acre, i.e., 6 kathas of land sometime during 1970. There are said to be about a dozen trees there in the said plot. The value of the said plot of land was refle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1984)10ITD81(Pat.)
1. One appeal has been filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), cross-objection has bean filed by the assessee and the assessee has also filed a separate appeal against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals). As all the three appeals relate to one order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these are being taken up together for consideration and disposal.2. The appeal of the department and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were fixed for hearing, thrice and twice adjournments were granted at the request of the assessee. The appeal was first fixed for hearing on 4-4-1983. The departmental representative requested for adjournment and the hearing was adjourned. Again it was fixed for hearing on 23-4-1984. Even then request for adjournment was made on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 10-5-1984.Again request for adjournment has been made which has been rejected as there was no sufficient ground mentioned for making request for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR1988Pat304
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act. 1940 is directed against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, making the Award of an Arbitrator a rule of the Court after certain modification.2. The parties to the appeal entered into a contract for making certain constructions. The respondent-firm undertook to execute the work as per the agreement dt/-12-9-1969. The work commenced in Sept. 1969 but could not proceed after a few months. Certain differences arose between the respondent and the appellant-Electricity Board, the other contracting party, and the dispute was, as per the agreement, referred to the arbitration of Sri P.R. Guha, Chief Engineer (Retired), River Valley Project Department, Bihar. The parties filed their written statements and fully participated in the proceeding before the Arbitrator. Ultimately, an Award was made and filed in court in Aug. 1972. The appellant raised several objections against the Award, and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR1987Pat175; [1987]66STC178(Pat)
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. The significant issue that emerges for adjudication in this reference to the Full Bench is whether the Notification No. S.O. 1432, dt. 28th Nov., 1985, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2a) of Section 31 of the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prescribing the declaration form to be carried on a goods carrier or a vessel for transporting goods through the State of Bihar during the course of inter-State trade, is violative of the freedom of trade guaranteed by Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution Equally at issue is a minor cleavage of judicial opinion within this Court betwixt two Division Bench orders passed at the motion stage.2. In the context of the aforesaid pristinely legal question, the facts inevitably pale into relative insignificance. These may, therefore, be briefly noticed from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 990 of 1986 (R). The petitioner therein is the proprietor of M/s. Jai Durga Industries --...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1987)20ITD94(Pat.)
1. While the assessee is in appeal for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1979-80, the revenue is in appeal for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. As these appeals involve consideration of a common issue, these are combined together and disposed of by this common order.2. We first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 One of the issues which is common for all the years both in the appeals filed by the assessee as well as those filed by the revenue is regarding the claim of assessee for deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee, a company, had taken over a running business of a partnership concern Hindustan Tools & Dies, Laxmi Mansion, Bistupur, Jamshedpur with all its assets and liabilities. Soon after taking over this business from Hindustan Tools & Dies, Laxmi Mansion, the assessee launched a scheme of expansion and diversification of the manufacturing job which was done by the existing business. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1988)25ITD599(Pat.)
1. The issue is about a sum of Rs. 45,710 which was added by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment for the asst. year 1979-80.2. The sum of Rs. 45,710 was made up of two additions one for Rs. 21,170 and another for Rs. 24,540. The sum of Rs. 21,170 represented the profit worked out at 2 per cent on sale of goods amounting to Rs. 10,58,509. It was found by the ITO that the account books of M/s. Raj Trading Co. which have been seized during the search of their premises contained an account of M/s. Rama Traders the assessee where the later was found to have made purchases amounting to Rs. 10,87,306. The books of the assessee showed that he had made purchases of only Rs. 28,797 from M/s. Raj Trading Co. The ITO therefore relying on the ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the seized books of M/s. Raj Trading Co. enquired why the excess purchases amounting to Rs. 10,58,509 were not appearing in the account of Raj Trading Co. in his accounts maintained by him. The assessee deni...
Tag this Judgment!