Guwahati Court June 1958 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.
M.L. Dalmia and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-30-1958
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The petitioner is a limited company and carries on the business of a building contractor. It has moved for a writ of mandamus or certiorari quashing the orders of the Sales Tax Officer directing the petitioner to get itself registered under the Sales Tax Act and requiring it to pay sales tax on its out-turn.2. It was served with a notice under Section 10 of the Assam Sales Tax Act (Act XVII of 1947) and required to get itself registered as a dealer under the Act. By another notice it was also called upon to produce its accounts beginning from 1st April, 1950, to 31st March, 1954, with reference to its aforesaid business. The petitioner was thereafter also served with a notice under Section 19 of the Act, under which the Sales Tax Officer is empowered to assess a dealer in case of his failure to get himself registered and if the officer has information in his possession that the dealer was evading payment of tax. The petitioners objected to the notices in question...
Anowar HussaIn and anr. Vs. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-1958
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same action for recovery of damages for false imprisonment. First Appeal No. 14 of 1954 has been presented by Anowar Hussain, the defendant No. 3 in the action, while the other appeal, First Appeal No. 18 of 1954 is by the plaintiff, Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee. 2. On the night of 17th March, 1950, at about 10-30 p. m., the plaintiff Ajoy Kumar was arrested at his house at Barpeta by the Circle Inspector of Police, Bhupati Ranjan Chakravarty (defendant No. 4). The arrest was made on the authority of a chit (Ext. A) prepared and signed by Anowar Hussain, the then Sub-divisional Magistrate of Barpeta, and handed over by the former earlier at his bungalow at about 10 p. m., to the Circle Inspector for execution. After his arrest, the plaintiff was taken in custody to the thana lock-up, where he was confined for the night. On the following morning he was produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate who remanded him to custody. An attempt...
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-1958
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for expunging certain remarks made by Mr. B. C. Hazarika, Magistrate, First Class, Barpeta, in an order dated 7-11-57. The petitioner was neither a party nor a witness to the proceeding. 2. It appears that a complaint was lodged by one Darbesh Ali Sarkar against the accused in the case, Safaruddin Sarkar and others, charging them of an offence of conspiracy for murdering the complainant, under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The defence case was that the accused were entirely innocent and that the case had been falsely started at the instance of the petitioner who was the owner of a parallel 'hat' called-Khorma Hat, of which the complainant Darbesh was a lessee. Several prosecution witnesses appear to have been examined in the case, and the learned Magistrate who held the enquiry was not prepared to accept the prosecution evidence. He held that there was nothing to show that ther...
Anil Ranjan Sen Vs. Smt. Anuprama Sen
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-10-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge and arises out of a proceeding under Section 488, Cr. P. Code, in which the learned Magistrate directed the husband (present petitioner) to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 30/- to his wife (present opposite party).2. It appears that the husband was not present on most of the hearings, in which evidence was recorded and was represented by his counsel, but there was no application made for dispensation of his personal attendance, nor is there anything else to snow 'that such dispensation was in contemplation and was allowed by the first Court.The learned Magistrate's attention was drawn to this lacuna in the course of arguments before him, as will appear from the concluding portion of his order but he overruled the contention, by merely stating that from the circumstances of the case, it is apparent taat the second party was allowed to appear through pleader and it has by no means been prejudicial to the second...
Cachar Cha Sramik Union Vs. Manager, Martycherra Tea Estate and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-06-1958
G. Mehrotra, J.1. This Rule was issued on an application tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a registered trade union with its office at Silchar and has regular memberships of 520 workmen of Martycherra Tea Estate, and its out-garden Aenacherra Tea Estate. The opposite party No. 2 owns and runs a tea garden in Cachar named Martycherra Tea Estate, with an out-garden called Aenacherra Tea Estate, and the opposite party No. 1 is the ex-manager of the garden. The workmen were employed in the said tea garden on daily wage basis. Out of 520 workers of the garden, 284 were males, 210 females and 26 minors.The manager was responsible for the payment of their wages, and the contention of the petitioner is that there was an implied contract under which besides the daily wages, the opposite party was liable to pay bonus twice a year - once during the Durga Puja and again at the time of Fague festival --on the basis of the atten...
Birendra Kumar Das Vs. the State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-05-1958
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of Vehicle No. ASD. 1202 and was granted a temporary private carrier's permit on 18-6-56. The number of his permit is P. tern. 47/56. According to the terms of the permit, it was to expire on 15-5-57. The petitioner, however, could not apply for renewal of his temporary permit in time as he alleges that his mother was very seriously ill. HE later on applied for renewal of his permit on 21-8-57 and also prayed for the grant of a fresh permit if renewal was not permissible. The Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority who is Opposite Party No. 4 in the petition, informed the petitioner by his letter No. 3255/RTA, dated 6-11-57, that he had not been found suitable by the Board, and thus his application for grant of a private carrier's permit was rejected. The petitioner then went up in appeal before the State Transport Authority against that order and, by its order dated 25-4-58, the appeal was rejected. The present petition on which th...
The State Vs. Ram Chand and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-04-1958
H. Deka, J. 1. This is an application under Section 185 of the Criminal P. C. for relevant order as provided under that section. Sub-section (2) of Section 185 which is relevant to this case runs as follows: 'Where two or more Courts not subordinate to the same High Court have taken cognizance of the same offence, the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced may direct the trial of such offender to be held in any Court subordinate to it, & if it so decides all other proceedings against such person in respect of such offence shall be discontinued. If such High Court, upon the matter having been brought to its notice, does not so decide, any other High Court, within the local limits of whose 'appellate criminal jurisdiction such proceedings are pending, may give a like direction, and upon its so doing all other such proceedings shall be discontinued.'2. The facts as appear from the petition made in this Court on b...
Kailash Prosad Singh and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-02-1958
G. Mehrotra, J. 1. These two Rules were issued on two separate applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. As common questions of law and facts have been raised in these two petitions, they are disposed of by a common judgment, 2. On 15-4-1958, a public auction was held for settlement of the Silonipam P.W.D. Ferry on the river Jiabhorali for a term of one year commencing from 1-5-1958. Previous to this auction sale, tenders were invited, but no settlement was mode, and in the auction sale which was held on 15-4-1958, the respondent No. 7, Pulin Chandra Chaudhury, offered a bid of Rs. 57,000/-, respondent No. 6, Biswanath Singh offered the highest bid of Rs. 87,020/-, and the petitioner in Rule No. 63 of 1958. Kailash Prosad Singh, offered a bid of Rs. 87,010/-. The Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, at the close of the public auction, accepted the highest bid of Rs. 37,020/- offered by the respondent No. 6 and sent all the papers to the Chief Engineer, Assam, for approval. A sum ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›