Guwahati Court December 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hari Prosad Agarwalla and anr. Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-20-1951
Deka, J.1. These are two criminal miscellaneous cases filed on behalf of Hari Prosad Agarwalla alias Hari Prosad Dhanuka alias Hariya and Kiahenlal Dhanuka numbered respectively criminal Misc. cases Nos. 71/51 and 72/51. The petitions have been filed in both these cases tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus or appropriate writs with regard to the detention order passed by the Assam Government on the petitioners.2. The facts are identical in both these eases and the same point of law arises for decision of this Court, namely, whether the orders of detention passed in both these matters are in contravention of Section 11, Preventive Detention Act of 1950, as amended by amending Act IV [4] of 1951. The orders of detention were passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, Preventive Detention Act of 1950 as amended by Act IV [4] of 1951, no period being specified, however, for which the detention was intended. Both these matters came up before the Advis...
Rahman Stores Vs. Commissioner of Taxes
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-05-1951
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Section 32(6), Assam Sales Tax Act, of 1947 (Act 17 of 1947) directed against an order of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, dated 7-2-51, by which he held the petition before him as timebarred under Section 32(4), Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. 2. The learned Commissioner points out that the appeal against which the petition was made was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner on 20-9-50 and that the petition before him should have been filed within 60 days from the date of the order after excluding the time taken for obtaining copies; the copies were applied for, for the first time on 20-11-50 and they were, according to the petitioner, obtained by him on 4-1-51, but in spite of the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the copies on 4-1-51, he did not file the petition before him in January 1951; he elected to file the petition on 2-2-51. 3. Mr. Brahmin for the petitioner contends that the learned Commissioner has computed the period...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›