Court : Patna
B.N. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10-3-1987 passed by respondent-Collector, contained in Annexure-1, whereby the petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease was rejected and the order dated 26-5-1987, contained in Annexure-2 and 28-7-1987, contained in Annexure-8, passed by respondent-Mines Commissioner, affirming the aforesaid order of rejection.2. Necessary facts for disposal of this writ application are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease in November, 1980 for a period of five years with respect to a stone quarry over an area measuring 17.75 acres comprising of lands of plot Nos. 699 and 700, situate in village Ratanpur in the district of Nawadah. After grant of the lease, the petitioner started carrying on mining operation and out of the aforesaid forest land, nine acres was broken up before coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and mining operation cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Raj, J. 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the order dated 22-8-2000, passed by a learned single Judge, by which he has allowed the appeal (M.A. No. 494 of 1999) filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent herein) against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing it to pay the Interim compensation on no fault basis and further held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interim compensation under the aforesaid section and it is the owner alone who is liable to pay the same. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent Dharampal owned a truck bearing registration No. DL-1 G-A/9319. On 18-8-1997, he look an Insurance Policy from respondent No. 2 in terms of the provisions of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the revenue.2. The question which has been referred to this Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the saidAct) is set out below :-- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalties imposed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given by the successor Wealth-tax Officer before passing the Order imposing penalties under Section 18(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act to the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71?'3. The facts of this case, which are not very much in dispute, are stated as follows:-- For the late filing of wealth-tax returns, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71. On or about 14th March, 1973 three similar show cause notices were issued by Mr. N. Dubey,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The points involved in both the writ applications are one and the same and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners In both the cases have challenged the validity of the amended provision of Rule 45(b) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as amended by the Notification No. SO 43, dated 1st February, 2000.3. The petitioner No. 1 in CWJC No. 8582 of 2001 is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in manufacturing cigarettes etc. One of its cigarette factories is located at Munger in the State of Bihar. It is registered as a dealer under the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under the Central Sales Tax Act. The raw materials and other inputs for manufacture of cigarettes including packing materials are purchased outside the State of Bihar and brought in the factory at Munger in course of inter state trade and commerce or by way of stock transfe...
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.A. Sharma, J. 1. I have gone through the two Judgments prepared by my two learned brothers (S.J. Mukhopadhaya and M,Y. Eqbal, JJ.) who along with me were the members of the Full Bench, which was constituted to answer the questions referred, which have been reproduced on the 2nd page of the judgment of Hon'ble S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 2. Hon'ble S.J. Mukhopadhaya. J. has held that Wilkinson's Rules have not been framed by the Governor General in the Council, who was the only competent authority at the relevant time to frame such Rules and, therefore, they lack statutory force and the law laid down by the Division Bench earlier In the case of Dulichand Khirwal, AIR 1958 Pat 366 and Mahendra Singh's case, AIR 1958 Patna 603, does not represent the correct legal position. Hon'ble M.Y. Eqbal, J. on the other hand has taken a contrary view holding the said Rules to be statutory in nature. The decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Dulichand Khirwal. AIR 1958 Patna 366 and Mahend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6.In this writ application a prayer has been made by the petitioner to the following effect: (i) An appropriate writ order or direction quashing the settlement of ghats mentioned in para 8 below within the area of operation of the petitioner society, made with the respondent No. 6 be issued(ii) An appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent 1st party to make settlement of the three ghats falling within the area of operation of the petitioner society with the petitioner within a time frame, be issued.Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has firstly submitted that in view of the fact that the impugned settlement with the respondent No. 6 was only for the year 2007-08 which period was to be completed in a month i.e. on 31.3.2008, he no longer intended to assail the order of settlement in favour of res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. This petition raises two issues on the functioning of local self-government. In the present case, it is about the functioning of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The Patna Municipal Corporation functions under the Patna Municipal Corporation Act 1951. 2. On behalf of the petitioner arguments were submitted by Messrs M.P. Gupta, Advocate and Mihir Kumar Jha, Advocate, each of them had submitted separately. On behalf of the State the submissions were made by Additional Advocate General 2 Mr. S.K. Ghose, Senior Advocate, and Mr. S.A. Hussain, Standing Counsel No. 6. On the day orders were reserved, the Court passed an order recording a summary of the proceedings until final date of hearing. This order is reproduced: 'The Judgment on this case is being reserved today after having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha and Counsel for the State Mr. S.A. Hussain, S.C. 6. On the last occasion when this matter was listed, the Court had made it cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. The abovementioned First Appeals and (Civil Revisions) are taken up together for disposal as being heard analogously and the parties being the same. F.A. No. 146 of 1990 (R) has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 23 of 1968 whereas F.A. No. 54 of 1990(R) has been filed by the same appellantswho were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 10 of 1967. Similarly, F.A. No. 55 of 1990(R) has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 and the same appellants have filed F.A. No. 145 of 1990(R) in which they were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 23 of 1968. F.A. No. 82 of 1990(R) has been filed by the State of Bihar against Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 in which the State of Bihar was the defendant. 2. Analogous judgment in both the suits being Title Suit Nos. 10 of 1967 and 23 of 1968 have been passed by Shri C. S. Choubey, the then Subordinate Judge I, Giridih on 3-3-1990. The first suit in point of time is Title Suit No. 10 of 1967, which has been filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. Pursuant to the call given by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (hereinafter referred to as the Morcha), a Bundh was organized on 8th June, 1998, in Ranchi, leading to ransacking of the premises of the Bar Association of the district Court, destruction of its furniture and the vehicles parked there were damaged or burnt, giving rise to retaliation by the members of the Bar. The members of the Bar went on strike seeking appropriate action against the State Administration, police and the organizers of the Bundh. On a representation of the District Bar Association, Ranchi, containing allegations of assault, arson and loot in the campus of the District Court particularly the Bar Association, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court passed an order dated 11-6-1998, directing it to be placed before the Division Bench for dealing with the same in the judicial side, pursuant to which a Division Bench was constituted on 12-6-98 on which date this Court permitted the Bar Associatio...
Tag this Judgment!