Guwahati Court July 1956 Judgments

Bharat Automobiles Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Sarjoo Prosad, C. J.1. This is a reference made by the Board of Sales Tax, Assam, under Section 32 (3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act (Act XVII of 1947), hereinafter called the Act.2. The reference has been made at the instance of the petitioners assessees whose head office is situated in Calcutta. The petitioners are dealers in motor vehicles and their spare parts of various kinds. They opened a branch at Gauhati on 1st April, 1949. Until the opening of this branch, it appears that M/s. Nagarmal Gaurishankar, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati, were acting as agents of the petitioners and sold goods on their behalf. But, on the opening of their office at Gauhati, M/s. Nagarmal Gaurishankar ceased to be their selling agent. On receipt of information about the petitioner's business, the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, entered upon their place of business and seized certain books of account on 21st January, 1950, The petitioners thereafter filed an application on 24th January, 1950, for registration un...

Aheibam Gokulchand Singh Chaoba Singh Vs. State of Manipur and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Datta, J.C.1. This is a revision petition filed by the accused in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1951 for the cancellation of the. order of the Additional District Magistrate, Manipur, transferring the case to his own file from the file of the Trying Magistrate (Sri Birahari Singh, E. A, C. and Magistrate First Class).2. The accused, who was formerly the Secretary of the Manipur Drivers Union Co-operative Bank is being prosecuted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for an alleged criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 3,000/- belonging to the Bank. The prosecution was launched by the Police in 1951. The accused was once discharged under Section 253 (2), Criminal P. C., but that order was set aside. The case proceeded thereafter in a leisurely way and Sri Birahari Singh, Magistrate First Class succeeded the trial Magistrate in 1955. No progress was made in his time also. On 39-2-1956, the informant applied to the A. D. M., Manipur, for the transfer of the case on the following gr...

Naga Kachari Vs. the State

Court: Guwahati

Deka, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of Naga Kachari who was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the majority verdict of the jury, the verdict being divided as seven to two.2. The case for the prosecution was that at about sun-set on 7-9-1952 Aghona Kachari who is at places described as Aghona Master (a teacher went out to a place within his compound to attend to the call of nature with a ghoti (water pot) in his hand. At that time three persons were seated in the courtyard of Aghona they being his mother Maghi Kacharini, his wife Mt. pomila Kacharini and a neighbour Gela Kachari. They soon heard a cry coming from the direction to which Aghona proceeded a few minutes ago - that he was being killed by Naga the accused.The three persons at once ran to the place from where the cry came and found Aghona lying on the ground with a spear ...

Ramesh Chandra Dey Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in tea, having his principal place of business at Silchar in the district of Cachar. He has been carrying on business since 1949, and got his name registered as a dealer on I4th January, 1950, as required by the Assam Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). In pursuit of his trade, the petitioner makes purchases of tea for resale both within and outside the State. The procedure normally adopted by the petitioner in making sales of tea outside the State is that the tea meant for resale is booked in the name of the petitioner, of which he is both the consignor and the consignee ; when the tea arrives in Calcutta, the sample of tea is examined by the prospective purchaser, and if he approves, the bill of lading or the consignment note is endorsed in his favour on receipt of the price, and the purchaser then obtains delivery of the tea consigned. The prospective purchasers are registered dealers within their circles.2. As the ...

Ramesh Chandra Dey Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: [1957]8STC384(Gauhati)

Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in tea, having his principal place of business at Silchar in the district of Cachar. He has been carrying on business since 1949, and got his name registered as a dealer on I4th January, 1950, as required by the Assam Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). In pursuit of his trade, the petitioner makes purchases of tea for resale both within and outside the State. The procedure normally adopted by the petitioner in making sales of tea outside the State is that the tea meant for resale is booked in the name of the petitioner, of which he is both the consignor and the consignee ; when the tea arrives in Calcutta, the sample of tea is examined by the prospective purchaser, and if he approves, the bill of lading or the consignment note is endorsed in his favour on receipt of the price, and the purchaser then obtains delivery of the tea consigned. The prospective purchasers are registered dealers within their circles.2. As the l...

Md. Azizul Haque Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Debendra Kumar Pal

Court: Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. This appeal arises out of an ejectment suit. Plaintiffs' case was that the lease was for a period of five years. The period had expired. A notice to quit had been sent to the defendant. He was also a defaulter. The plaintiffs also asserted that the house was required by them bona fide for personal occupation. All these allegations were repudiated. The learned Munsiff found that the lease deed which was for five years was inoperative by reason of its failure to comply with the provisions contained in Section 107, Transfer of Property Act. He further found that plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their bona fide personal requirement in his view the defendant was not a defaulter. The only point on which he found in plaintiffs' favour was that the notice sent by the plaintiffs to the defendant was valid in law. The learned Sub-Judge on appeal endorsed all the conclusions reached by the learned Munsiff, except that he found that the notice of ejectment sent by the plai...