Guwahati Court July 1957 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.
Raja Bhairabendra Narayan Bhup Vs. Superintendent of Taxes and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for appropriate writs against the opposite parties, preventing them from enforcing the provisions of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Assam Act XVII of 1947, as amended) against the petitioner, and compelling him to get himself registered as a 'dealer' and to submit returns. The petitioner is the holder of what is known as the Bijni Raj Estate.2. Within the ambit of his zamindari, there are sal forests, which are divided into coupes, and standing sal trees are settled every year in different coupes and lots by auction--usually to the highest bidder. The settlement-holders are permitted to fell the sal trees and market them by sawing and other processes, for sale. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, issued a notice on the petitioner under section 10 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, on 14th September, 1953, requiring him to apply for registration as a 'dealer' under the said Act, or to ...
Sagolsem Babu Singh Vs. Thiyam Mani Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Cr.P. Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Manipur, recommending that the order of the A.D.M., Manipur, dated 18-5-1956, passed, presumably under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 523 of the Cr. P. Code, and directing that the amount of Rs. 1,011/- seized by the Police from the petitioner Sagolsem Babu Singh, ought to be paid to the first four respondents, should be set aside and the amount restored to the petitioner. It is a clear case where all concerned went wrong and the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge must be accepted.2. The question arose in this way. The petitioner is admittedly the Umang Lal Selungba of the Deity Irum Ningthou and the Claims Department issued a cheque for Rs, 1,011/- in his name, which became payable to the Deity on account of compensation for some land of the Deity. The petitioner encashed the cheque on 22-3-56.3. On 1-4-56 the four respondents as representing the village...
Wareppam Babu Singh Vs. Manipur Administration
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. The appellant Wareppam Babu Singh was convicted by the learned Special judge, Manipur, under Section 165A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year. He has preferred this appeal against that order.2. The facts leading to his prosecution and conviction are simple and lie within a short compass. On 21-11-55, the appellant along with two women was caught on the border between Manipur and Assam at Jiribam smuggling rice, by constable Abdul Rashid (P.W. l). The constable was taking them along with the rice to the Police Station at Jiribam. On the way they stopped for a while near the shop of one Satish in the Bazar known as Kalibari Bazar and there the appellant is alleged to have offered Re. 1/- in change to the constable and to have requested him to let them and the rice go.The incident was witnessed by Benoy Bhusan Shil (P.W. 2), who was In the shop of Satish. The constable took the money and taking the appellant and the women proceedied to th...
Sri Pradip Choudhury Vs. State and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-12-1957
Deka, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the complainant Pradip Choudhury who filed a complaint against the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, and seven other constables whose names were not disclosed, on the allegation that he was roughly handled and assaulted by the accused persons. The complaint was filed on the 20th August 1956, before the Magistrate at Karimganj which was dismissed by the presiding officer with (he remark 'Seen the complaint petition. Heard the lawyer for the complainant. Complaint petition is filed, as there is no sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, which covers the accused.'The petitioner-complainant, however, was not satisfied with the order of dismissal of this complaint and filed a fresh complaint on the same allegations on 28th August 1956. The only addition made in the second complaint petition was that the case is not barred under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Magistrate should proceed with the trial. On a fu...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›