Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: patna Year: 2004 Page 4 of about 51 results (0.031 seconds)

Apr 13 2004 (HC)

Cit Vs. Md. Ehtesam

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

nagendra rai, j. the point involved in all the cases under reference being the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of accordingly.2. this is reference under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) made by the income tax appellate tribunal, patna bench, patna to answer the following question of the law.'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner holding that as the penalty was imposed on the firm for delay in filing the return, no penalty was leviable on the assessee, who was a partner of the firm under section 271(1)(a) of the income tax act, 196l.'3. in all the ten cases, the same question has been referred and in five reference cases, namely, tax case nos. 27,28,29,30 and 33 of 1989, the opposite party is md. ehtesam and in other five tax case nos. 31,32,34,35 & 36 the opposite party is md. ezaz.4. the matter relates to imposition of penalty for not filing the return within time for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. the matter also relates to the assessment years 1972-73 as well as 1978-79. however, the matter with regard those years is not the subject matter of decision in this case for the reason that the penalty imposed for not filing the return with regard to aforesaid two years has attained finality by the order of the appellate authority and that was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Md. Ehtesam and anr.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

nagendra rai, j.1. the point involved in all the cases under reference being the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of accordingly.2. this is reference under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) made by the income-tax appellate tribunal, patna bench, patna to answer the following question of the law :--'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner holding that as the penalty was imposed on the firm for delay in filing the return, no penalty was leviable on the assessee, who was a partner of the firm under section 271(1)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961.'3. in all the ten cases, the same question has been referred and in five reference cases, namely, tax case nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33 of 1989, the opposite party is md. ehtesam and in other five tax cases no. 31, 32, 34, 35 and 36, the opposite party is md. ezaz.4. the matter relates to imposition of penalty for not filing the return within time for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. the matter also relates to the assessment years 1972-73 as well as 1978-79. however, the matter with regard to those years is not the subject-matter of decision in this case for the reason that the penalty imposed for not filing the return with regard to aforesaid two years has attained finality by the order of the appellate authority and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2004 (HC)

Smt. Rambha Sinha Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-12-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j.1. this application has been filed for quashing the notice (annexure-4) issued by the executive officer of panchayat samiti, katra intimating that the special meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on. 7.1.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence brought against the pramukh. by way of amendment prayer of the petitioner is to quash another notice (annexure-9) issued by the executive officer dated 4.2.2002 conveying that the special meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on 11.2.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence against the pramukh. petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 11.2.2002 whereby the motion of no confidence has been carried out against her.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as the pramukh of the panchayat samiti, katra and a requisition (annexure-1) to convene a special meeting of the panchayat samiti was given to her to consider the no confidence motion. petitioner by order dated 29.12.2001 (annexure-2) rejected the said prayer, inter alia, on the ground that out of 30 members 18 have shown their confidence in her. ultimately the executive officer of the panchayat samiti gave notice intimating to the members that special meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on 7.1.2002 to consider the no confidence motion brought against the petitioner. the meeting as scheduled was held and 15 members voted in favour .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 2004 (HC)

Eastern Safety and anr. Vs. State of Bihar Through the Director Genera ...

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-06-2004

1. petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner no. 2 is one of its partners and they have filed the present writ application for quashing condition no. 1 in tender notice no. 10/2003-2004, issued by respondent no. 3 deputy inspector general of police (provision). old secretariat, patna, published on 31.7.2003 in the english daily newspaper, namely, 'hindustan times', prescribing obtaining of sales tax registration in bihar as a condition precedent for submitting tender.2. petitioner no. 1 is a small scale industrial unit, having its unit at dhanbad in the state of jharkhand and is engaged in manufacturing various types of shoes and making supply of shoes to various government departments, including the police department. para military forces and mines etc. it has been supplying i.s.i. mark shoes to the bihar police regularly since so many years.3. on 31.7.2003, an advertisement was issued by respondent no. 3 for supply of various articles, including hunter shoe, p.t. shoe and gum boot being item nos. 1.2 and 3. respectively, of the said advertisement. a copy of the advertisement has been appended as annexure 1 to the writ application.4. in pursuance of the said tender, the petitioners submitted their tender papers on 22.8.2003. they have appointed one agent m/s. amit traders, a/32. ganga apartment, mainpura, patna, having its business in the state of bihar for effectuating supplies in terms of the tender notice. said m/s. amit traders is registered under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2004 (HC)

Ply King Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Mar-25-2004

1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the present application has been filed for quashing the order dated march 12, 1991, as contained in annexure 10, passed by the commissioner of income-tax, patna, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of penalty and interest under section 273a of the income-tax act (for short 'the act').3. the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and on february 15, 1985, the premises of the firm and the residential house of one of its partners were searched under section 132 of the act. admittedly, at that time, the jurisdiction to hear the application under section 273a of the act was with the commissioner of income-tax, calcutta. however, on march 1, 1985, the petitioner filed a petition under the aforesaid section before the commissioner of income-tax, patna, stating that a number of books of account were seized at the time of search and the petitioner wanted to make full and true disclosure of all its income so that proper assessment could be made thereof right from the assessment year 1976-77 till the relevant period, i.e., the year of search. it was further prayed that in view of the fact that the petitioner was ready to make full and true disclosure, the petitioner might be exempted from payment of penalty, interest, etc. on june 6, 1985, the central board of direct taxes (for short 'the board'), transferred the jurisdiction to hear the matters under section 273a of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2004 (HC)

Ply King Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes

Court : Patna

Decided on : Mar-25-2004

heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12-3-1991, as contained in annexure 10, passed by the commissioner, patna, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of penalty and interest under section 273a of the income tax act (hereinafter referred to as'the act').3. the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and on 15-2-1985, the premises of the firm and the residential house of one of its partners were searched under section 132 of the act. admittedly, at that time, the jurisdiction to hear the application under section 273a of the act was with the commissioner, calcutta. however, on 1-3-1985 the petitioner filed a petition under the aforesaid section before the commissioner, patna, stating that a number of books of account were seized at the time of search and the petitioner wanted to make full and true disclosure of its all income so that proper assessment could be made thereof right from assessment year 1976-77 till the relevant year of the search. it was further prayed that in view of the fact that the petitioner was ready to make full and true disclosure, the petitioner might be exempted from payment of penalty, interest etc. on 6-6-1985, the central board of directors (hereinafter referred to as 'the board') transferred the jurisdiction to hear the matters under section 273a of the act from the commissioner, calcutta to patna, and, thereafter, on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (HC)

Gorakh Giri Vs. Surendra Giri and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

nagendra rai, j.1. the plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2003, passed by the additional district judge-iii, siwan, in title appeal no. 103 of 1983, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code'). the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is to incorporate reliefs, prayed for in the suit, in the judgment and decree, which have been omitted by the appellate court while allowing the appeal after setting aside the dismissal of the suit by the trial court.2. the factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the petitioner filed title suit no. 81 of 1972 in the court of the 2nd munsif, siwan, against the defendant-opposite parties under order i, rule 8 of the code for declaration that the disputed land is a public land and the defendants have no right and title over the same and they have no right and title to construct wall, palani etc. over the suit land and also for delivery of possession after removal of the illegal structure of the defendant-opposite parties from the suit land.3. the trial court dismissed the suit. the plaintiff preferred title appeal no. 103 of 1983, which was allowed on 18.12.1987 and the operative part of the judgment is that the appeal succeeds and the order of the court below is hereby set aside. in terms of the aforesaid judgment, a decree was prepared and it also incorporated the same terms. 4. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2004 (HC)

Bablu Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Mar-04-2004

navin sinha, j.1. this application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.1.2003 passed by the additional sessions judge, i, barh (patna) in cr. misc. no. 1 of 2002 by which he has cancelled the bail granted to petitioners herein on 29.11.2002 in pandarak ps case no. 64 of 2001 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 read with 120b of the indian penal code and section 27 of the arms act.2. it would appear from, the order dated 29.11.2002 passed in b.p. no. 640/2002 that both the petitioners were granted bail on the submission that the allegations against them as contained in the fir were general in nature and that there was no specific allegation of committing murder against them. the further assumption was that in similar circumstances accused kapil singh and navin singh were granted bail by this court in cr. misc. no. 3241 of 2002 and 32508 of 2001. it would appear from the said order dated 29.11.2002 that in the said circumstances the court below was persuaded to hold that the allegations against the present petitioners was general in nature and in similar situation two of the accused as named above were granted bail. in the circumstances, the court below proceeded to grant bail to the present two petitioners.3. subsequently on 13.12.2002 the informant submitted an application for cancellation of bail to the present petitioners. it was contended that the case of the present petitioners was not same or similar to that of the aforesaid accused i.e., kapil singh and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2004 (HC)

Rajendra Sharma and anr. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Patna

Decided on : Feb-17-2004

b.n.p. singh, j.1. appellant rajendra sharma along with shankar dayal sah (dead) and prayag sah suffered conviction under section 7 of the essential commodities act, for violation of provisions of bihar trade articles (licenses unification) order, 1984 (hereinafter called as 'unification order') and while the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months, shankar dayal sah and prayag sah were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months each. as during pendency of appeal, shankar dayal sharma was reported to be dead, appeal as against him had abated. it was brought to the notice of the court that no appeal was preferred by other convict prayag sah.2. factual matrix.--allegedly pursuant to apprehension of one prayag sah with a tin of 18 litres of kerosene oil, said to have been purchased from fair price shop of the appellant through his employee shankar sah in black market, business premises of the appellant was searched by the circle officer, jandaha, vaishali, in course of which maldistribution of essential commodities to the consumers attached to the fair price shop of the appellant, came to his notice, and prominent among those maldistributions was that though there should have been only 128 litres of kerosene oil in the stock, on strength of entries made in the stock register, on physical verification, there had been seizure of 180 litres of kerosene oil from the stock. instances of maldistribution of sugar had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2004 (HC)

Jai Lal Yadav and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Feb-16-2004

chandramauli kr. prasad, j.1. this application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 5-12-2001 (annexure-5) whereby a notice in regard to the date and time to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioners has been given. further prayer made by the petitioners is to quash the resolution dated 12-12-2001 whereby motion of no confidence has been passed against them.2. shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners were elected as pramukh and up-parmukh of arrah panchayat samiti for which the election was held on 11-6-2001. a requisition to convene the meeting of the panchayat samiti was given and ultimately by the impugned notice dated 5-12-2001 the secretary of the panchayat samiti issued notices intimating that the meeting of the panchayat samiti shall be held on 12-12-2001 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioners. meeting as scheduled was held and by the impugned resolution dated 12-12-2001, motion of no confidence has been carried out against the petitioners.3. by order dated 10-1-2002 this court allowed the election of the parmukh which was scheduled to be held on 16th of february, 2002 but directed that the election of the parmukh shall abide by the final decision in the case. it was also directed that all financial matter of the panchayat samiti shall be transacted by the executive officer and not by the petitioners or the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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