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 : AIR1965Pat87
G.N. Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal from the decisions of Choudhary, J. in F. A. No. 357 of 1951. The appellant, who was also the appellant before Choudhary, J., is defendant No. 1 in a suit for partition instituted in 1949 by the two plaintiffs, father and son. The father Manku Prasad Singh, however, died during the pendency of the First Appeal.2. The property of which partition is sought is a house situated in Mohalla Muharrampur Bhanwar Pokhar, in the town of Patna, bearing Old. Holding No. 101 and New Holding No. 153, within Circle No. 14, of the then Patna City Municipality. The plaintiffs (now the sole plaintiff Sambhu Prasad Singh) claim -/8/- annas share in the disputed house and want their share to be carved out and allotted to them exclusively. It has been alleged in the plaint that the remaining -/8/- annas share to the house belongs to the defdts and that the plffs and the defendants have been in joint possession and occupation of the same as co-sharers. It has further been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
G. N. PRASAD, J. - Under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, has drawn up a statement of the case and formulated the following question of law for determination by the High Court :"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,20,000 was the income of the assessee assessable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act ?"The original assessee was Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sah Deo, the holder of an impartible estate. By an indenture of lease dated the 22nd January, 1944, the assessee granted a lease of certain mining rights to Messrs. Aluminum Production Company Ltd., in respect of 171.03 acres of land for a period of thirty years on, inter alia, the following terms :(i)Salami (inclusive of Moharkarai and Dewai Negi amounting to Rs. 5,000)Rs. 2,25,000(ii)Rent0-8-0 per acre.(iii)Royalty0-6-0 per ton.(iv)Minimum royaltyRs. 22 per acre.Previous to this, on the 20th March, 1941, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : AIR1969Pat165; 1969(17)BLJR912
B.N. Jha, J.1. These three miscellaneous first appeals by the decree-holder, which arise out of three execution cases, are directed against the order of the District Judge, Purnea, dated July 9, 1963, dismissing the execution cases filed by the appellants.2. Proceedings were started sometime before 1951 by the Special Land Acquisition officer. North Bihar Range, Muzaffarpur, for the acquisition of three pieces of land belonging to the decree-holder for the purposes of the Assam Access Road. The lands appertained to touzi No. 30 of the Purnea Collectorate, situated in village Madati. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the appellant in respect of its lands but it was not satisfied with the valuation made by the said officer. Hence it filed three applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the court for the determination of the amount of compensation which gave rise to the three lands acquisition cases Nos. 22, 23 and ...
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
Reported in : AIR1972Pat446
U. N. Sinha, C.J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by three petitioners, praying that two leases granted by the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, to Messrs. Bharat Marble Company, a partnership firm, and Messrs. Hindustan Steel Limited, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, be quashed and cancelled. Copies of the leases have been given as Annexures 6 and 7, dated the 12th May, 1967 and the 17th October, 1966 respectively. The further prayer is that the said respondents be enjoined to desist from interfering with the possession of the petitioners with respect to certain properties comprised within a lease, dated the 11th July, 1919, a copy of which has been given as Annexure 1. It has also been prayed, that, if necessary, the petitioners be restored into possession of each and several portion of the property mentioned in the said leases. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, and a counter-af...
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 : Patna
Reported in : AIR1985Pat196; 1985(33)BLJR185
S.S. Sandha Walia, C.J.1. Whether the prescriptive period of twelve years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (the original transfer being in contravention of Section 27 of Regulation 3 of 1872} would stop running from the 1st of Nov. 1949, being the date of the enforcement of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949-- is the significant solitary question arising from a deep-seated conflict of precedents within this Court which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.2. The facts deserve notice within the narrow confines of their relevance to the issue aforesaid. The whole dispute focusses on Jamabandi No. 65 of Mouza Billi, police station Madhupur, which is recorded as Mulraiyat-ka jote in the name of Sitaram Singh 8 annas Mulraiyat of the said Mouza and Jaleshwar Singh, Yudhisthir Singh and Kesturi Devi. The plot stands recorded in the names of different co-sharers. By a sale deed dt. 22nd March, 1939, 38.09 acres of land were sold to one...
Tag this Judgment!