Court : Patna
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed by Shri Subhash Chandra Chaurasia, Sub-ordinate Judge-VII, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 27 of 1995 whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-VII, Patna has been pleased to pass decree in favour of plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit house.2. The brief fact is that the plaintiff-opposite party Smt. Premlata Sinha filed Title Suit No. 27 of 1995 for a decree of eviction against petitioners-defendants from the suit premises described in Schedule-1 of the plaint. The sole ground on which the eviction suit was preferred was personal necessity of the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that she is the owner and landlord of the suit house. The husband of the plaintiff was in government service, who retired in the year 1992, After retirement of her husband the suit house was required for the residence of the plai...
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
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, dated 21st December, 1983, whereby the decree of the Munsif, Samastipur was reversed and the suit filed by the present appellants was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs Samir Kumar Prasad Karn and others brought a suit for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession over the suit land measuring 5 kathas 1 dhurs described in Schedule A of the plaint.3. The declaration was sought on the basis of following averments in the plaint:(a) Survey plot No. 1292 measuring 2 kathas 6 dhurs appertaining to khata No. 440 originally belonged to one Babuji Jha, who was the recorded tenant of the same. Babuji Jha died issueless leaving behind him two grand nephews Nand Kishore Jha and Bishwanath Jha, who came in possession of the said survey plot No. 1292.(b) Nandkishore Jha and Bishwanath Jha gave, surv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J.1. This writ Application has been filed by Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, an Advocate practising in this Court for the following reliefs,--(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring Section 16(1)(2) and (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring Para-A of Chapter-XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.(iii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.2004 (contained in Annexure-1) in so far as it relates to designation of Mr. Vikas Singh, the respondent as Senior Advocate, (iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the High Court the respondent to designate all those Advocates as Senior whose applications for designation have been arbitrarily rejected even though they are as able, experienced and knowledgeable as those whose name appears in the impugned order.2. At the very inception we must record that so far as th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 10th September, 1996 passed by a Single Judge in Misc. Appeal Nos. 155 of 1995, 159 of 1995, 250 of 1995 and 265 of 1995. The former two appeals have been dismissed while the latter two appeals have been only partly allowed.2. Claim Case Nos. 23 of 1988 and 26 of 1988 disposed on 16th May, 1995 by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Vaishali at Hajipurgave rise to the aforesaid Misc. Appeal M.A. Nos. 155 and 159 of 1995 were filed by the owners of the vehicles in question. M.A. Nos. 250 of 1995 and 265 of 1995 were filed on behalf of the claimants seeking additional compensation.3. The claim case Nos. 23 and 26 of 1998 arose out of an accident on 8th May, 1988 leading to the demise of two Advocates, Dwarika Prasad and Kamlesh Prasad assessed to be approximately 58 years and 30 years of age respectively. They were crushed to death by a bus bearing registration No. B.P.P. 8182 on northern side of the Gang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and orderdated 10-9-1996 passed by a single Judge in Misc. Appeals Nos. 155 of 1995, 159 of 1995, 250 of 1995 and 265 of 1995. The former two appeals have been dismissed while the latter two appeals have been only partly allowed.2. Claim Case Nos. 23 of 1988 and 26 of 1988 disposed on 16-5-1995 by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Vaishali at Hajipur gave rise to the aforesaid Misc. Appeals. M. A. Nos. 155 and 159 of 1995 were filed by the owners of the vehicles in question. M. A. Nos. 250 of 1995 and 265 of 1995 were filed on behalf of the claimants seeking additional compensation.3. The Claim Case Nos. 23 and 26 of 1988 arose out of an accident on 8-5-1988 leading to the demise of two Advocates, Dwarika Prasad and Kamlesh Prasad assessed to be approximately 58 years and 30 years of age respectively. They were crushed to death by a bus bearing registration No. BPP 8182 on the northern side of the Ganga Setu bridge w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1993)45ITD61(Pat.)
1. These two cross appeals were filed objecting certain decisions of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in his order dated 30-6-1992. The assessee objected to the disallowance of Rs. 22,742 paid as interest and the revenue objected to the deletion of addition made under Sections 69 & 69A(sic) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter naming of the Act is omitted).2. The assessee is an individual. He is a Director of M/s Bharat Engineering & Body Building (P.) Ltd. and one of the partners of M/s B.F. Industries. The assessee had paid interest on loans amounting to Rs. 22,742 during the year. The parties to whom the interest was paid were as follows:- 5. V. Dayal Khuntelal Rs. 8,676 ----------- The payment of these interest was claimed as deduction from income earned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as according to him the claim does not satisfy the conditions of Section 57(iii). He had given various reasons which can shortly be described as follows:- He pointed out that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD87(Pat.)
1. The assessee has three grievances in this appeal which are as under :- 1. Confirmation of a sum of Rs. 87,000 as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the Act. 2. Retention of a sum of Rs. 15,000 as against Rs. 20,800 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of low withdrawal for household expenses.2. As regards the third grievance it was brought to the notice of the assessee's counsel that there is no decision whatsoever by the Appellate Commissioner (A/C) and, therefore, this ground does not arise from out of the impugned order of the A/C. However, after some discussion it was decided that instead of sending the matter back to the A/C for rendering a decision on the ground taken in the first appeal regarding levy of interest under section 217, we direct the Assessing Officer to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before charging interest under section 217. The third ground is disposed off accordingly. The assessee maintains personal a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. Multiplicity of legislation tends to create jurisdictional penumbra where one is not quite clear whether it is open to him to take an action or whether that particular action lawfully belongs to some other authority. In that circumstance an act done with perfect good intent and in larger public interest may yet fall down on grounds of being unauthorised by law. This is what appears to have happened in this case.2. Having regard to the rapid development of Rajgir as a place of historic, religious and tourist attraction the district administration constructed there a bus stand at an expense of Rs. 27 lakhs. The District Magistrate, Nalanda then issued an order under his memo No. 586, dated 16-9-1998 directing that vehicles carrying passengers or tourists must stop at the designated bus stand and no where else. It was also directed that the vehicles would pay fees at rates prescribed in that order. This order is sought to be challenged by the petitioner who is a passenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. Suraj Samdarshi for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Kirti Singh for the Electricity Board and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The petitioner is being proceeded against in a certificate proceeding for alleged recovery of certain sums of electricity dues. Petitioner filed its objection before the Certificate Court and the Certificate Court is not deciding the objections apparently on the ground that the matters are too technical and the proceeding is pending. He has come to this Court challenging the certificate proceedings. In my view, the challenge before this Court at this stage is misconceived. In this case, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Under this Act, the Electricity Board is now deemed to be a distribution licensee and is bound by the obligations cast upon distribution licensee under the Act. Under Section 42(5) of the Act, distribution licensee is...
Tag this Judgment!