Guwahati Court August 1960 Judgments

Messrs. Tansukhrai Bodulal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Nowgong, and Others ...

Court: Guwahati

MEHROTRA J. - The petitioner - Messrs. Tansukhrai Bodulal - is a Hindu undivided family firm carrying on business at Kampur in the district of Nowgong. Shri Gordhan Das Khakolia is the karta of the Hindu joint family. On the 25th March, 1947, the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1946-47 was completed by the Income-tax Officer of Gauhati, under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called "the Act"), on a total income of Rs. 30,955. On the 24th March, 1951, the petitioner received a notice dated 19th March, 1951, purporting to be one under section 34 of the Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Nowgong, arrayed as respondent No. 1 to the present petition.The petitioner by the said notice was asked to submit his return for the period ending the 31st March, 1947, within 31st March, 1951. Several reminders were sent by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner to submit his return for the aforesaid period and ultimately the petitioner sub...

Bengal United Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Ram Labhaya and ors.

Court: Guwahati

G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner, the Bengal United Tea Company, Ltd., is the owner of a tea estate known as 'Aenakhal Tea Estate' Annada Charan Das, respondent 2, was employed as an assistant medical officer at Old Singalla Division of the Aenakhal Tea Estate. He was dismissed by an order of the petitioner on or about 28 January 1959. On 9 January 1959 it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent 2 absented himself from his duties without leave from 3 p.m. to 4-30 p.m. A preliminary inquiry was held by one O. Carruthera, the manager of the said tea estate, on 12 January 1959, and the respondent 2 is alleged to have shouted at the manager and one V.K. Nanda, assistant manager.2. Thus he was guilty of gross insubordination to the manager. On 13 January 1959 the respondent 2 was asked by the manager to explain in writing within seventy-two hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the charges contained in the letter of that date. The respondent 2 however submi...

Mahammed Ismail Vs. Tripura Administration

Court: Guwahati

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference with a recommendation that the order to file a complaint against the petitioner made by Shri P. K. Roy, Munsiff-Magistrate, Sonamura on 80-9-1959 may be set aside and the proceedings in C. R. case No. 447 of 1959 which has been started against the petitioner on the basis of the said order may be quashed.2. One Julfu Meah filed a complaint against Chand Meah and 4 others alleging that the 5 accused conspired together and forged a power of attorney as if it has been executed and registered in Pakistan by the complainant in favour of Chand Meah authorising the latter to transfer the complainant's property and that by virtue of the said false power of attorney Chand Meah executed a sale deed of the complainant's property in the name of the rest of the accusedThus they were accused of offences under Section 120B and Section 467, I.P.C. There was art enquiry into the complaint before Shri P.K. Roy, Munsiff-Magistra...

Manu Mian and ors. Vs. Union Territory of Tirpura

Court: Guwahati

1. The six petitioners were convicted by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Belonia Under Section 6(a)(3) (sic) of the Indian Passport Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He further directed the O/C, Belonia Police station to remove the petitioners from Indian Territory after their release. The petitioners moved the Sessions Court in revision. But the Sessions Judge held that there was no room for interfering with the decision of the Magistrate. Now they have come in revision to this Court.2. 1 have perused the entire evidence in the case of 10 P. Ws. and 5 D. Ws, I regret to say that the appreciation of the evidence of the case by both the lower Courts has been utterly perverse and a grave injustice would be done to the petitioners if the orders of the lower Courts are allowed to stand.3. It is interesting to note how this case arose. According to P. W. 7, the Choukidar of the west Pilak village attached to the Belonia ...

Wahengbam Tomchou Singh and ors. Vs. Chingakham Amusna Singh

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1961CriLJ352

1. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference to quash the order of the First Class Magistrate, Manipur, Sri B, Ahmad, reviving the Criminal Case No. 17 of 1959 after its dismissal under Section 259 Cr. P.C.2. The short facts are as follows:On. 17-1-1959, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 430 I.P.C. against the petitioners and after Police Report and after summoning the petitioners the case was posted to 10-8-1959. On that date the complainant was absent and the Magistrate passed the order that the accused be discharged under Section 259 Cr. P.C. Shortly hereafter, the respondent appeared in Court and filed a petition stating that he was present in the Court compound, but that he did not hear the case being called out and that he heard only just then that the case had been struck off because of his absence. He, therefore, requested that the complaint may be restored. Thereupon the Magistrate passed another order on the same date that the explanation given by the co...

Wahengbam Tomchou Singh and ors. Vs. Chingakham Amusna Singh

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1961CriLJ352

ORDERT.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference to quash the order of the First Class Magistrate, Manipur, Sri B, Ahmad, reviving the Criminal Case No. 17 of 1959 after its dismissal under Section 259 Cr. P.C.2. The short facts are as follows:On. 17-1-1959, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 430 I.P.C. against the petitioners and after Police Report and after summoning the petitioners the case was posted to 10-8-1959. On that date the complainant was absent and the Magistrate passed the order that the accused be discharged under Section 259 Cr. P.C. Shortly hereafter, the respondent appeared in Court and filed a petition stating that he was present in the Court compound, but that he did not hear the case being called out and that he heard only just then that the case had been struck off because of his absence. He, therefore, requested that the complaint may be restored. Thereupon the Magistrate passed another order on the same date that the e...