Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 99-103]Shankar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 99 Satyam Abhishek vs State of Bihar and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 100Noor Alam Khan vs. The State of Bihar and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 101Arun Kumar Singh Alias Arun Singh vs. Nirmala Devi 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 102Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Satish Kumar Keshri...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 99-103]
Shankar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 99
Satyam Abhishek vs State of Bihar and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 100
Noor Alam Khan vs. The State of Bihar and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 101
Arun Kumar Singh Alias Arun Singh vs. Nirmala Devi 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 102
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Satish Kumar Keshri 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 103
Case Title: Shankar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 99
The Patna High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to Shankar Kumar, an agent of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited who is accused of not re-paying the matured amount of the depositors including complainants. Kumar is booked for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 34.
Justice Purnendu Singh granted anticipatory bail upon considering that the petitioner had given an undertaking to actively cooperate with the complainant.
Case Title: Satyam Abhishek vs State of Bihar and Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 100
The Patna High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the notification for the selection of candidates to the positions of constables in the Bihar Police and Bihar Special Armed Police.
A division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy observed, “We do not find any arbitrariness in fixing a cut-off date for acquisition of qualification and also satisfying the stipulation as to upper and minimum age limit. It is for the Appointing Authority to determine such things and if there is no colourable exercise or arbitrariness; this Court cannot set aside such stipulations.”
Case Title: Noor Alam Khan vs. The State of Bihar and Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 101
In a significant verdict, the Patna High Court has ruled that affiliated and minority educational institutions in the state of Bihar will now only need to consult their respective university administration rather than seeking "approval" in matters related to the appointment, promotion, dismissal, discharge, removal from service and termination of service or demotion of teachers .
The court's decision comes in response to two writ applications challenging section 4(5) of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2013, which substituted section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The petitioners argued that the amended section infringed upon the rights of minority educational institutions guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Entering Into Second Marriage Even With Wife's Consent May Constitute Cruelty: Patna High Court
Case Title: Arun Kumar Singh Alias Arun Singh vs. Nirmala Devi
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 102
The Patna High Court has held that entering into a second marriage, even with the consent of the first wife, may constitute cruelty to the first wife, thereby giving her reason to live separately and giving cause of action to file complaint cases under Section 498A of the IPC.
The division bench of Justices Jitendra Kumar and PB Bajanthri observed, “As such, even lodging of criminal cases under Section 498A of the IPC by the Respondent-wife cannot be construed as cruelty to the Appellant-husband. After perusal of the averment made in the petition, we further find that as per averment of the Appellant-husband, he has entered into second marriage, though allegedly with the consent of the Respondent- wife.”
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Satish Kumar Keshri
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 103
The Patna High Court has held that completed assessments can be interfered with by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of the search.
The bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy has upheld the Tribunal’s Order and observed that the Tribunal was perfectly within the statutory framework in making a remand directing the Assessing Officer to carry out a re-assessment of the assessment year 2002-03, which stood completed as of the date of initiation of Section 153A proceedings if some incriminating material seized during the search is available.