Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: patna Year: 2004 Page 3 of about 51 results (0.023 seconds)

Jul 14 2004 (HC)

Chinta Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jul-14-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. this application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 7.1.2003 of the panchayat samiti, tarari whereby motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner happens to be the pramukh of panchayat samiti, tarari. a requisition to convene the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion was given to her. for one or the other reasons, she did not convene the special meeting and thereafter 13 members decided to call the meeting on 31.12.2002 and requested the executive officer of the panchayat samiti to issue notice. in compliance of the said order, the executive officer of the panchayat samiti sent notice dated 1.1 2003 intimating to the members that 7.1.2003 is the date fixed for holding the special meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner the meeting as directed was held and no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner.3 mr. verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raises a very short point. he submits that the notice does not conform to the requirement of seven days clear notice as provided under section 44 (4) of the bihar panchayat raj act. he points out that notice was sent on 1.1.2003 whereas the date of the meeting fixed was 7.1.2003 and thus, notice did not give seven clear days for holding the special meeting. in support of his submission, he has placed reliance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 2004 (HC)

GlIndia Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jul-08-2004

nagendra rai and s.n. hussain, jj.1. the commercial taxes tribunal, bihar, patna has made a reference under section 48 of the bihar finance act, 1981 with regard to an order dated 28.1.1989 passed in revision case no. pt-30/88 arising out of the assessment of sales tax made on the petitioner by order dated 9.2.1983 under section 17(2) of the act, for the period 1978-79.2. admittedly, the petitioner was registered under the bihar sales tax act, and the assessment order was passed under section 17 (2) of the act, for the aforesaid period by the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, patna special circle, patna.-before the assessing authority the applicant claimed exemption from payment of sales tax in course of export to nepal for rs. 41,68,042.29 and filed customs certificates of nepal. after verification, the assessing officer allowed the claim. there was excess payment by the petitioner and as such he made a claim for refund of rs. 53,899.88. under the relevant provision, the matter was sent by the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, patna to the joint commissioner of commercial taxes, for counter signing. the joint commissioner wanted to look into the custom certificates but he did not find them on the assessment record nor the same were made available to him on demand and thereafter in exercise of suo motu power under section 46(4) of the act, he set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the assessing officer to decide the issue on admissibility of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 2004 (HC)

Commissioner Customs Department Vs. Smt. Nirmala Mitra

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jun-28-2004

r.s. garg, j. 1. the short question argued at length and in great details by the legal luminaries can be summarized as to whether the high court is entitled to apply the provisions of indian limitation act specially section 29(2) and section 5 to condone the delay, in an application under section 130a of indian customs act made by the party appellant. we are required to explicit what is the implicit and inherent in the provisions of law because the respondent-objector has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of condonation of delay of three days in making the application for reference. 2. the facts necessary for disposal of the present controversy in short are that on 4.11.1950 the cid branch of bombay police instituted a case against one s.k. mitra, husband of the respondent observing that the deceased made certain defalcation of government money. they also seized foreign marked gold bars from the residential premises situate in bombay. the police case was that out of the defalcated money, said s.k. mitra acquired moveable and immovable properties. the further allegations were that he acquired the properties between 1941 till september, 1949. he was tried under section 409, 420, 467 and section 120b, read with section 4d9, 420, 467/471 of the indian penal code. the criminal case was finally decided in 1993. the gold bars which form part of the attachment proceedings in defalcation case no. mjc no. 31 of 1949 before the judicial commissioner, ranchi was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 2004 (HC)

Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Jun-21-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. prayer of the petitioner in this writ application are as follows :--(1) to quash the order dated 27.2.2001 (annexure-4) of the government of jharkhand in the department of water resources and energy whereby tenughat vidyut nigam ltd. has been declared to be an undertaking of the government of jharkhand in exercise of the power under section 47 of the bihar state re-organisation act, 2000. by this order it has been further declared that in the memorandum and article of association of the tenughat vidyut nigam ltd. the expression 'bihar' and 'bihar rajya' be read as 'jharkhand' and 'jharkhand rajya' respectively;(2) to quash the order dated 24.5.2001 (annexure-5) of the government of jharkhand in its energy department whereby in exercise of power under article 49(1)(b)(d) and (e) of the articles of association and in supersession of all the earlier orders, it had constituted the board of directors of the tenughat vidyut nigam ltd;(3) to quash the order dated 31st of october, 2002 (annexure-6) of the government of india whereby it had ordered that all the assets and liabilities relating to tenughat vidyut nigam ltd. shall pass on to the state of jharkhand with effect from such taking over by the government of jharkhand under section 47 of the bihar re-organisation act 2000;(4) to quash the communication dated 2nd of september, 2003 (annexure-10) of the government of india whereby the secretary to the government of bihar in the department of energy .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 2004 (HC)

Naresh Chandra Das and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-21-2004

i.p. singh, j.1. this is an application under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'the code'). it is directed against the order dated 10.4.2002 passed in cr. rev. no. 89 of 2001 by the learned sessions judge, katihar whereby and whereunder he set aside the order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, katihar in protest/complaint case no. 367/2000 dismissing the complaint petition under section 203 of the code.2. it appears that opposite party no. 2, deepak chandra das had filed a complaint case no. 452 a/1998 against the present petitioners. on receiving this complaint petition the learned chief judicial magistrate, katihar sent it to the police station for lodging an fir and for investigation. the police registered barsoi p.s.-case no. 32/1999 on the basis of this complaint petition. after completion of investigation the police found the prosecution case false and concocted and recommended and for action under sections 182 and 211 of the indian penal code against opposite party no. 2. the learned chief judicial magistrate accepted this final report submitted by the police. he, however, initiated an enquiry under section 202 of the code on the basis of a protest petition (c.a. no. 367/2000) filed against the final report submitted by the police. subsequently after holding an enquiry under section 202 of the code the learned chief judicial magistrate dismissed the complaint petition under section 203 of the code. against this .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2004 (HC)

Narayan Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-13-2004

s.k. katriar, j.1. heard mr. v. nath for the petitioner, mr. abbas raider, jc to gp ii for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and mr. o.p. agrawal for respondent no. 3 (shailendra singh). this writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.2001 (annexure 2), passed by the learned collector of the district of begusarai in revenue case no. 68/97 ram lagan singh v. narayan sah, in purported exercise of powers under section 21 of the bihar privileged persons homestead tenancy act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. according to the writ petition, the petitioner is a 'privileged tenant' in terms of section 2(j) of the act and has his homestead on the land in question. he was threatened with ejectment and, therefore, filed an application under section 5 of the act which was on contest allowed by order dated 15.9.1997 (annexure 1), passed by the learned anchal adhikari, begusarai, in basgit parcha case no. 6026/3 of 96-97/97-98, whereby the requisite declaration under the act, was granted in favour of the petitioner, and basgit parcha was directed to be issued to him. respondent no. 3 preferred an application under section 21 of the act which has been allowed by the impugned order, whereby the said order dated 15.9.1997 (annexure 1) has been set aside, and the basgit parcha directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not a 'privileged tenant' within the meaning section 2(j) of the act who is owner .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2004 (HC)

Sunaina Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-10-2004

s.k. katriar, j.1. heard mr. manoj kumar ambastha for the petitioner, mr. abbas hsaider j.c. to gp no. ii for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and mr. dhruv narayan for respondent no. 5. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2002 (annexure- 7), passed by the learned divisional commissioner, munger, in munger revenue mutation revision no. 9/96-97 (sunaina devi v. sheonandan singh and ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner under section 17 of the bihar tenant's holdings (maintenance of records) act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable.2. according to the writ petition, the petitioner acquired right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dt. 31.12.85. thereafter she filed an application under the provisions of the act, for mutation which was registered as case no. 55/86-87. the learned circle officer, dharhara, passed his order dated 6.6.87 (annexure-2) also inviting objections. he passed orders for a general citation which was published soon thereafter, a copy whereof is marked annexure-2a to the writ petition. it is further stated in the writ petition that no objection was received. by order dated 13.7.87 (annexure-3), passed by the learned anchal adhikari, dharhara, the petitioner's application for mutation was allowed. aggrieved by the same, on sheo nandan singh filed the statutory appeal in items .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2004 (HC)

Laxmi Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-06-2004

narayan roy, j.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. this writ application was filed substantially for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment by way of promotion to the post of enforcement sub-inspector-in preference to respondent nos. 6 to 15, who have been appointed by way of promotion to the post of enforcement sub-inspectors. a prayer has also been made to quash the orders of appointment of respondent nos. 6 to 15 as they were juniors to the petitioner as shown in joint and final gradation list of clerks of mofussil subordinate office of the transport department, published in the year 1993.3. during the pendency of this writ application, an amendment application has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging annexure a to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state, whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to order passed by this court in cwjc no. 1437 of 1998 has been rejected.4. according to the pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted fact that the petitioner is working as clerk in mofussil subordinate office of transport department and he was entitled to be appointed by way of promotion to the post of enforcement sub- inspector by virtue of the decision taken by the transport commissioner, government of bihar, patna, whereby and whereunder a decision was taken to fill up certain posts of enforcement sub- inspector from amongst the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2004 (HC)

Sita Ram Choudhary Vs. Patna Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-16-2004

r.s. garg, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.the petitioner was appointed as sanitary supervisor. the petitioner later on under annexure-4 was allowed to work as tax collector with effect from 11.8.1987. the petitioner was thereafter relieved on 14.8.1987 to join the post of tax collector. since thereafter, the petitioner continued to work as tax collector. thereafter on 15.6.1995 vide corporation order no. 27/95 under annexure-8 the petitioner and seven others were absorbed in the cadre and their services were regularised as tax collectors. thereafter, the petitioner continued to work but all of a sudden on 3.4.2002 vide memo no. 289 the administrator, patna municipal corporation sri a.b. prasad reviewed the matter and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner directed that order no. 27/95 (annexure-8) stands recalled. he also observed that in the channel of promotion sanitary supervisor cannot be promoted as tax collector, therefore, the order dated 15.6.1995 was illegal.2. the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has come to this court inter alia submitting that as the petitioner was validly promoted and in that case the order of promotion, absorption and regularisation could not be cancelled ex parte and lopsided and before passing or issuing orders contrary to the interest of the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to him. it is also submitted by him that vide annexure-6 memo no. 62150 dated 26.11.1976 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2004 (HC)

Mithelesh Pati Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-15-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. this application has been filed for quashing the no confidence motion dated 10.10.2002 passed against the petitioner removing him from the office of parmukh of the panchayat samiti and notice to that effect dated 10.10.2002 (annexure-1).2. in the thicket of facts pleaded, facts which are necessary for the decision of the present application are that the petitioner was elected as parmukh of panchayat samiti, bagha-i, hereinafter referred to as the samiti, members of the said samiti gave notice dated 18.9.2002 requesting the petitioner to convene the special meeting of the samiti to consider the no confidence motion brought against him. ultimately the executive officer issued notice dated 3.10.2002 (annexure-2) conveying that the special meeting of the samiti shall be held on 10.10.2002 and the item of agenda would be the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner. meeting was so held and the motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioner.3. mr. s.s. dvivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points to assail the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, i deem it inexpedient either to incorporate or answer the same. he submits that the notice dated 3.10.2002 fixing 10.10.2002 as the date for holding the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner does not conform to the requirement .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //