Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This application was placed for admission before B.P. Singh, J., who by his order dated 5.2.1993 referred this case for hearing before a Division Bench to decide the correctness of the decisions of this Court reported in 1992 Eastern India Criminal Case page 5 and 1987 PLJR page 678.2. These decisions undoubtedly support the contention of the petitioner that if a person is prosecuted for violation of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stock) Order 1977 without official sanction and at the same time he is also prosecuted for violation of another order for which no sanction is necessary, the entire order of cognizance will be rendered illegal and therefore his prosecution for latter offence shall also fail.3 In this case the prosecution of the petitioner was lounched under the following circumstances:On 25.10.1991, the Supply Inspector, Ghatshila submitted a written report to the Ghatshila police station to the effect that at about 11 a.m. he alongwith Block...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.K. Datta, J.1. The Civil Revision application is directed against that part of the order dated 23.9.2000 passed by Subordinate Judge-IV, Darbhanga in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 1998 by which he has held the final decree dated 4.6.1982 passed in Title Suit No. 212 of 1971 as not executable being time barred according to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. The facts relevant for the decision in this revision application are not in dispute and may be briefly enumerated. Title Suit No. 212 of 1971 was filed by the petitioner Ram Lakhan Sahani claiming one-fifth share in the lands mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. After some initial hiccups ultimately all the parties and their lawyers joined in a compromise petition which had been filed on 27.1.1977 and by judgment dated 27.7.1977 it was ordered that let the compromise be accepted and the suit be disposed of in terms of the compromise and that the compromise petition shall form part of the decree and the same be drawn up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. Whether the six months' period of limitation provided under Section 11(a) of the Central Excise Act would also apply to notice issued under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Act for recovery of (Modvat) credit wrongly availed of, though the Rule itself, at the material time, was uncircumscribed by any period of limitation ?. This is the primary question in T.C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1991 (R) and one of the main questions in T.C. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1991 (R) and CWJC No. 3867/1993 (R). These two sets of cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Two questions of law, common to T.C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3/1991 (R) (in all of which the common assessee is M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited) have been referred to this Court by the Customs, Excise & Gold Control, Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act on a direction given by this court, at the instance of the Collector, Central Excise, Patn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Jha, J.1. A significant question of law arises for decision in these two writ petitions-whether the State Government is liable to pay the salary and allowances of a Government company.2. In C.W.J.C. No. 1718 of 1994 the petitioners are the employees of the Bihar Finished Leathers Limited, a subsidiary company of the Bihar Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. In C.W.J.C. No. 5015 of 1986 the petitioners are the employees of the Bihar State Agro industries Development Corporation Ltd. They, in substance, seek direction to the concerned Corporation for payment of salary etc. and further direction to the State Government to make sufficient fund available to them (Corporations) to facilitate payment. Since the writ petitions involved pure question of law, it is not necessary to set out the factual details of the cases.3. The respondents do not deny that the petitioners or, indeed, other employees of the two Corporations are entitled to payment of salary etc. While the Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Deb, J.1. This Election petition has been filed by the abovementioned petitioner with application under Section 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act calling upon the question of election of the Returned candidate from 267 Ramgarh Assembly Constituency for the election of a Member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly held in the month of March, 1995.2. The Election result was published/announced on 1.4.1995 declaring the Respondent No. 1 as an elected candidate. The petitioner had contested the said election under the banner of Communist Party of India (Marxist Group) while the Respondent No. 1 was the official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party. As per Notification of the Election Commission of India, Sub-divisional Officer, Ramgarh was made the Returning Officer of that Assembly Constituency. The dates of the Election programme were notified as follows:(i) Last date of filing nomination paper 23.1.1995(ii) Date of Scrutiny 24.1.1995(iii) Last date of withdrawal 27....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mridula Mishra, J. 1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order of detention dated 15-11-2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah (Annexure-1) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the order dated 24-11-2003 (Annexure 2) passed by the State Government approving the said order of detention in exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act and also the order dated 30-12-2003 (Annexure 6) passed by the State Government confirming the aforesaid order of detention under Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the Act. 2. Section 12(1) of the Act lays down that the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social element can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. The petitioner is a registered firm having its place of business at L-7/2, Bistupur Bazar, P.S.Bistupur in the town of Jamshedpur. By this Criminal writ application the petitioner challenges the authority and jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle Jamshedpur) to seize the items described in Annexure-2, in exercise of his power under Section 31(5)(a) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (in short the Finance Act) and the order dated 5.10.94 (Annexure-6) passed under Section 33(5)(b) of the Act whereby a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,15,893.45 has been imposed on the firm. The circumstances leading to the present proceeding may be stated in brief. The petitioner firm has separate place of business, one at Bistupur and other at Parsudih Market Yard. Both the places are registered under the Finance Act. The Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax has permitted the firm to keep the Accounts jointly.2. On 26.9.94, third respondent inspecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad for the appellant and Mr. Eqbal for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice.2. With the consent of the parties, this miscellaneous appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself on a very simple point.3. It appears that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition being compensation Case Nos. 32 of 1989 and 28 of 1989 before the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga, on 2.3.1989. Admittedly, the accident took place on 6.4.1987. There was some delay in filing of the said claim case and, as such, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied the memo of claim petition. By order dated 22.6.1989 the learned court below, after hearing the Counsel of the appellant and condoning the delay, admitted the case. Notices were issued to the opposite parties.4. When the case was being heard by the court below, the insurance company raised a point that the said claim case was barred b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2007)110TT(JP.)at366
1. In all these appeals filed by the Department as well as the assessees, the main issue involved is fraudulent withdrawals from Animal Husbandry Department (AMD), Government of Bihar, in the fodder scam. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief history of the case gathered from papers brought on record and submissions made is that Shri Dipesh Chandak was engaged in the criminal conspiracy of systematic fraudulent withdrawals of funds from the State Exchequer in connivance with the officials of AHD, Government of Bihar, and others. The modus operandi to facilitate this was that purchase orders were placed by AHD on the assessee for supply of feed to the Department. The assessee in turn would raise bogus bills of supply of feed on the Department without actually making them. In support of these supplies, the assessee would raise fictitious purchase vouchers as if purchases have actuall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The applicant M/s Narain Industries has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1990 with a request that because of the failure of the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator, this Court should intervene in the matter and appoint an Arbitrator to arbitrate into the disputes which have cropped up between the parties because of the termination of the agreement as contained in Annexure-1.3. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the respondents M/s Diamond Cements which is having its factory at Damoh (MP) and its registered office at Golden Enclave, Tower B-1, III Floor, Airport Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, is a cement manufacturer. In the course of its business it appoints the distributors and selling agents etc. It appears from the records, especially from Annexure-1, a document dated 11.10.1999 that the petitioner M/s Narain Industries were appointed as representative of ...
Tag this Judgment!