Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The defendants-' tenants have filed the present revision application against the order dated 11-1-1988 passed by Munsif, 1st Court, Samastipur in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1987 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioners under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 29-4-1987 passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1987 on the ground that the aforesaid application was not maintainable in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. Primary question for determination in the present case is as to what is the remedy available in law to a tenant to challenge an order of eviction passed against him under Section 14(4) of the Act on the ground that the said order was passed without service of summons on him for his appearance. 3. As the point inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. As the common question of law arises in both the revision applications, with the consent of the parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Civil Revision No. 1443/85 is directed against the order dated 5-6-1985, passed by the Munsif II, Gaya, in T. S. No. 39/84, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of permanent injunction has abated under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Civil Revision No. 1228/87 is directedagainst the order dated 8-6-1987, passed by the Munsif, Second Court, Samastipur, in T. S. No. 89/82, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permanent injunction was not maintainable under S. 4(b) of the Act. 4. Both the cases have been referred to a Division Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to whether the provisions of Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for thepetitioner as also the learned Advocates,appearing for the Department of Mines andGeology and the Divisional Forest Officer,Gaya. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents not to obstruct with the mining operation over an area for which a valid mining lease has been granted by the competent authority. It is stated that with respect to an area of 6.90 acres of land, in Mauza Naili (Kushdira) Plot No. 1 (Part) in the district of Gaya, initially a lease was granted for stone crushing on 6-3-1976. The said lease was renewed from time to time and ultimately at last on 19-7-1991 it was renewed for a period of five years by the District Mining Officer, Gaya. In a revision Case No. 23 of 1991, filed by the petitioner, the period of five years was enhanced to 10 years by the Mines Commissioner in accordance with the Government policy. 3. Counter-affidavits on behalf of the respondents have already been filed in this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1993)47ITD549(Pat.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. DC (A) dated 6-12-1990. The assessee is a Director of BCCL and received coal field allowance during the year under appeal. He claimed that 50 per cent of this allowance should be considered as non-taxable in view of several decisions of the ITAT. The Assessing Officer while framing the order under Section 143(1) had allowed Rs. 1,200 only as non-taxable. The assessee had filed a petition under Section 154 requesting the Assessing Officer to rectify the order, but the said request was rejected by the Assessing Officer stating that the ITATs decision relied by the assessee are no more in force in view of Board's Circular No. 517, dated 16-6-1988. In that Circular Board has directed that only the excess over 100 per month or 50 per cent of the actual colliery allowance paid by the Coal India Limited whichever is more is to be treated as perquisite and the balance amount of the payment of the said allowance may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal has been directed against order dated 28- 11-90 passed by the District Forum, Patna in complaint case No. 50 of 1989, and it has been filed by the appellant who was the opposite party before the District Forum and hereinafter called the opposite party. The respondent No. 1 was complainant before the District Forum (hereinafter called the complainant). 2. The complainant applied for allotment of a M.I.G. Flat at Patna to the Bihar State Housing Board (the O.P. - appellant), a statutory authority constituted under the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 and got his application registered on 12.l2.72 and subsequently he deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 30.6.81 in the prescribed form on the receipt of a booklet from the O.P. which was sent to him after much delay and after several quarries made by the complainant with regard to the registeration of his application and that in the meantime flats were allotted to different persons and the claim of the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1992)43ITD259(Pat.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [hereinafter described as DC (Appeals) for short], dated 16-9-1991 confirming the penalty levied under Section 271 B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (naming of the Act hereinafter, omitted). The appeal relates to the assessment year 1989-90.2. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer (AO for short), as the assessee did riot file the audit report under Section 44AB within the stipulated time under Section 139(1), it was liable for penalty under Section 271B. He issued a show-cause notice to the assessee asking for explanation. It was the reply of the assessee that though'the books of account were audited and certificate under Section 44AB was obtained before due date, it could not be furnished as the return inadvertently was not filed within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) due to illness of the partner, who was looking after the Income-tax matters, it had escaped his mind. He ul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ applications which in terms of order dated 4-3-1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 1991 have been together, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 380 of 1990 the petitioners pray to quash the communication dated 2-4-1987 (as contained in Annexure-5) of the Sub-Registrar, Danapur (Respondent No. 4) addressed to the Collector, Patna (Respondent No. 2) impounding the sale deed dated 30-3-1987 of the petitioners under Section 33 of the Stamp Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and for restraining the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from proceeding further with Impound Case No. 43 of 1988-89 started against petitioner No. 1. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 1991 the petitioners pray to quash a similar communication, though dated 20-3-1987 of Respondent No. 4 addressed to the Collector, Patna (Respondent No. 2) impounding the sale deed dated 19-3-1987 of the petitioners u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
K.P. Sinha, Member: 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th Decemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. The complainant No. 1 the proprietor of the Complainant No. 2 M/s. Laxmi Textiles, West Patel Nagar, Patna. 2. This case has been filed by them with averments hereinafter mentioned. Complainant No. 1 after obtaining financial assistance from Central Bank of India, Rukanpura Branch, Patna and the Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna established M/s. Lakshmi Textiles a small scale industrial unit for manufacturing fine hosiery cloths and got it registered in the Industries Department, Government of Bihar bearing Registration No. 03/10/06762 dated 29.8.83. The complainant got the buildings, machines raw materials, finished and unfinished goods of the firm insured with the New India Assurance Company, Exhibition Road, Patna the opposite party No.2, under the Fire Insurance Cover. Initially the company insured the buildings, plant and machinery of the firm for 2.5 lakhs under Fire Temporary Cover Note A/c No. 608541 dated 14.11.88 for the period from 14.11.88 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J. 1. These two appeals which have been heard together and are being disposed of jointly arise out of a common judgment by the first appellate court in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, in addition, arrears of rent and damages or unauthorised occupation were also claimed. The trial court disallowed the reliefs of eviction and damages for unautho-rised occupation. It, however, allowed the suit only in respect of the claim for the arrears of rent. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the trial Court's judgment. The defendant also went in appeal. These two appeals were heard and disposed of by the 1st appellate court by a common judgment whereby it dismissed the defendants appeal and allowed the plaintiffs appeal decreeing the suit in whole. This necessitated filing of these two separate appeals before this court which have been heard together and are being disposed of by this jud...
Tag this Judgment!