Guwahati Court February 1953 Judgments
Khagendra Nath Barbora Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-24-1953
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner in this case was found guilty and convicted under Section 2(8), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 as amended. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, On appeal to the Sessions Judge, U. A. D. the conviction was maintained but the unserved part of the sentence of imprisonment was remitted. The sentence of fine was allowed to stand. He has assailed the validity of the order by a revision petition to this Court.2. The conviction has been recorded Under Section 2(8), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act but it is agreed that this is due to a clerical mistake. The conviction was meant to be Under Section 2(7) of the same Act.3. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : On 23-10-1951 an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Sibsagar in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 2(1...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Suprava Deb Roy Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-11-1953
Bam Labhaya, Ag. C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for Writs of Mandamus and Certiorari. It questions the competency of the order of the State Transport Authority, Assam, dated 21-6-52. 2. The facts leading to the petition are as follows: Tenders were invited for Contract Carriage (Taxi) Permits in Cachar region. The petitioner submitted an application for a permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Cachar, granted one taxi permit to the petitioner for a period of 3 years with effect from 15-4-52. The order was duly communicated to the petitioner. In pursuance of the terms contained in the order, the petitioner paid the requisite permit fee and a permit was issued in her favour. The petitioner then purchased a vehicle No. ASA 1028 for a sum of Rs. 7000/- and began plying it. On 2-7-52 the petitioner was informed by a letter from the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam, that Subhas Chandra Sen, respondent 2, had been granted a permit in h...
Tag this Judgment!Bamasundari Debi and ors. Vs. Collector of Darrang
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a petition for a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The admitted facts of the case which have led to this petition are that certain lands were requisitioned by orders dated 24-4-50 and 27-4-50, The lands are situate in Mangaldai Subdivision of Darrang-District. On 27-9-1951, petitioners whose lands were requisitioned applied to the Collector of Darrang under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, praying for a reference of the question of compensation to the Court of the District Judge, Gauhati, under the provisions of the Act. In the application they stated that the requisition officer of Mangaldai had been informed on 17-11-1950 by a petition that about 2000 bighas of their land had been rented and the rent of the land had been fixed at 2 maunds of paddy per bigha for land under rice cultivation and 1 maund of jute per bigha for land under jute cultivation. The rest of the land was leased at the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Safu Mia and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Deka, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 147, I. P. C. and a sentence of fine of Rs. 150/- against each accused and in default the accused were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused were tried with the help of assessors and the majority verdict with regard to the offence under Section 147, I. P. C. was that all the accused were not guilty but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, U. A. D. on appreciation of the evidence found a case made out against the accused persons under Section 147, I. P. C. and sentenced them as aforesaid.2. There were as many as twelve accused persons who were jointly tried and the allegation against them was that they assembled armed with 'lathis', spears, 'daos' etc., on a pathway leading from Feral Mea's 'bari' (homestead) to the Sonai Road and they not only blocked the passage by ' digging drains and planting banana trees and raising fencing round it but they chased the complainant Ferai Meah and his supporters f...
Tag this Judgment!Jesraj Jiwanram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-03-1953
RAM LABHAYA C. J. (Ag.).-Messrs. Jesraj Jiwanram, the petitioners in this reference, are an undivided Hindu family. The family firm was dealing in cycles, cycle parts and motor accessories. The assessment with which we are concerned is of the year 1944-45. The accounting period is 1943-44.The petitioners applied to this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, praying for a requisition to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had declined to refer on the ground that they did not arise from its order dated 11th June, 1949.The petition came before a Division Bench of this court consisting of the then Chief Justice, (Thadani, C. J.) and myself. He was of the view that all the questions, of which reference was sought, were questions of law, and that the Appellate Tribunal could be required to state the case and refer those questions to this Court for its decision. My view was that these questions did not arise from the appellate order of the Tribunal. The case was placed befor...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Kumar Dey and anr. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-03-1953
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. One Ali Asgar, a Forest guard produced two accused who are the present petitioners Nalini Kumar Dey and Nani Gopal Dey on 16.1.52 along with a report in writing before the Magistrate 1st Class, Belonia alleging that they were caught by him in the act of transporting 2 Bhars of paddy across the river towards Pakistan. On this a case under Section 3 of the Tripura Rice and Paddy Embargo Order 1949 was registered. The Magistrate proceeded with the case without examining the complainant on oath on the assumption that it was not required as the complainant was a public servant. The objection raised by the defence counsel that the complaint could not be proceeded with without examination of the complainant on oath who was not a Forest Officer and a public servant and as such could not be exempted from the examination as required by Section 200(aa), Cr.P.C. was also negatived by the learned Magistrate on 21.3.52, holding 'that the cognisance of the case has been regula...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›