Court : Patna
1. In a writ petition the respondent-petitioner complained before this Court that the seat of Makhiya of a particular Panchayat was reserved for extremely backward class community, and the same is being occupied by a person, who does not belong to the said community, and the Election Commission failed to even address itself to a complaint made by the petitioner to the effect. By the judgment and Order under appeal the writ petition was allowed with a direction upon the Commission to decide the merits of the said 66mplaint. While the appeal was preferred; by' the Commission against the judgment and order under appeal, the Commission applied its mind to the complaint lodged by the petitioner-respondent and concluded, ultimately, that the person elected does not belong to the Community for which the post in question was reserved. On such conclusion, Commission declared the election invalid. Subsequent thereto, the person, whose election was, thus, declared invalid, preferred a separate a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. All the writ applications raise the common issue pertaining to the power of the State Election Commission to cancel the election of Pramukh/Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti in a special meeting convened by the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the State Election Commission was not informed about the vacancy and no direction sought from it for proceeding to fill up the vacancy by holding election for the said post and accordingly they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases lie within a narrow compass.3. In all the writ petitions the offices of the Pramukh and/or Up-Pramukh became vacant due to the resignation of the said office bearers or their removal from the said office by motion of No Confidence. After the vacancies arose it is alleged that a notice in Form 24 was issued by the respondent Sub Divisional Officer under Rule 87 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules convening a meeting of the Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of a public carrier truck No. HR55/1330 and while it was carrying for the work undertaken by the Company, cable wiring, machines and other articles and equipments to Bahadurganj in district-Kishanganj being the worksite of the petitioner-Company, the truck was seized by District Transport Officer (DTO), Purnea, respondent No. 2 who is respondent No. 3, in person at Zero Mile, Gulab Bagh in the district of Purnea on 04.04.2007. The writ petition was filed on 25.07.2007 as by then the said respondent had merely held back the truck seized and was not releasing the same. Thus, the writ application was ostensibly filed for release from illegal seizure and compensation for long, illegal detention of the truck. In course of the proceedings on 08.11.2007, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 2, the DTO Purnea and on prima facie satisfaction of this Court that the authority had acted willfully mala fide, he (DTO Purnea) was direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, being aggrieved by the order dated 15-9-2003 passed in CWJC No. 4122 of 2003 (reported in 2004 (1) Pat LJR 25) whereunder the learned single Judge has held that the decision to reject, the writ petitioner's application was based on a ground which had no application to the case. The learned single Judge after quashing the Board's decision dated 13--5-2003 required the appellant to reconsider the writ petitioner's application.2. The necessary facts for disposal of the writ application are that the original petitioner Hiranand Stone Works is a proprietorship firm and is owned by Nand Kishore Tekriwal. The petitioner firm is registered as small scale industry unit having its registration No. 3-1-02643 -PMT-SSI dated 30-11-1982. The petitioner after being registered as SSI with financial assistance of Bihar State Financial Cor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J. 1. M/s. Senbo Engineering Limited, the petitioner before this Court, had a claim that it demanded to be referred for arbitration as provided under the contract. The State Government, the other party disputing the petitioner's claim, nominated an arbitrator. The petitioner felt that the appointment of the arbitrator was made in breach of the relevant provisions of the contract. It, therefore, moved the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 making a request for appointment of an arbitrator on the plea that the nomination made by the State Government was non-est. The designated Judge took the view that since an arbitrator was already appointed, the petitioner's request for appointment of arbitrator was not fit to be accepted. The application filed by the petitioner was, therefore, dismissed. But in view of certain observation made in the order passed by the designated judge, the petitioner decided to appear before the person nomina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Radha Mohan Pd., J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner, who retired as Chief Engineer while posted at the headquarters of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Boards) on 31-3-1997, is aggrieved on account of non-release of his 10% pension, gratuity and leave encashment. He was, however, paid 90% of pension and the amount of GPF.2. In short, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Electrical Engineer in the service of the Board on 1-4-1960 and later promoted to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer on 1-7-1968 and thereafter, to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer on 20-8-1982 and ultimately he superannuated on 31-3-1997 while holding the post of Chief Engineer.3. While the petitioner was posted as General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Barauni Thermal Power Station, Barauni (Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station Kanti, Muzaffarpur), he was prima facie found guilty of gross miscond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner,, a clearing and sales agent of products of Nestle India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) has filed the present writ application for quashing the notification dated 10th April, 2001 whereby amendment has been made in the Schedule of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in exercise of power under Section 39 of the Act in so far as the products made by the Company included under Item No. VIII of the schedule captioned as Animal Husbandry Products and notices issued by the agricultural Produce Markets Committee, Mussalahpur (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) asking the petitioner to take licence and to pay market fee with regard to the said products. At the time of argument, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner confined the challenge to the notification only with regard to two products, namely, lactogen and milkmaid being sub-items No. 22 and 25 under heading VIII, Animal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR2000Pat210
1. This writ petition for and on behalf of debtors of the State Bank of India (respondent No, 2), is directed against the order dated 19-1-2000 (Annexure-3), passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Misc. Appeal No. 11/99, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2-2-99 (Annexure-1), passed by the Tribunal in case No. P.T. 32 of 1998 (arising out of Money Suit No. 21 of 1994), decreeing the suit and for directing issuance of certificate under Section 19(7) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for execution against the petitioners. It is further prayed that the records of Money Suit No. 21 of 94 as well as Misc. Case No. 1 of 96 (the debtors application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., which was pending before the Sub-Judge on the eye of transfer of the entire proceedings before the Tribunal) , be sent back to the subordinate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated March 20, 1992, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). A copy of the impugned notice has been marked annexure-3 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner is a registered firm carrying on wholesale business in cloth. For the accounting year July 9, 1986, to June 27, 1987, relevant to the assessment year 1988-89, it submitted the return of its income showing a total income of Rs. 95,670 on July 27, 1988. Along with the return it filed a statement showing computation of total income, audited trading, profit and loss account, balance-sheet and the tax audit report in the prescribed form as well as details of the loan accounts verified and confirmed by the concerned creditors. The return was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Ranchi, respondent No. 2, after scrutiny and the assessment order was passed on November 17, 1989. On March 31, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1998)67ITD237(Pat.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is a Firm deriving income from commission as Agent of M/s. G. Premjee Ltd. and M/s. Stemcor UK Ltd., Hongkong.2. Search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted in the case on 8-12-1995. In response to notice under section 158BC the assessee filed return on 19-7-1996 for the block period of 1-4-1985 to 8-12-1995. It had filed return of income for the first time on 31-1-1995 for the assessment year 1994-95. It had stated that the business was started from 2-3-1993 and the firm decided to close the accounts for its first year business on 31-3-1994 as it would not have been feasible to prepare the accounts for 28 days only, i.e., 2-3-1993 to 31-3-1993. It received commission of Rs. 23,46,650, Rs. 13,27,769 and Rs. 4,15,411 during the period relevant to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. It claimed deduction 50% of the aforesaid commission under section 80-O of the IT Act. From the balance commission it ...
Tag this Judgment!