Guwahati Court June 1973 Judgments

Chiranjitlal Anand Vs. the State of Assam and anr. Overruled

Court: Guwahati

P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of assessment of 20th March, 1969, of the Superintendent of Taxes, Jorhat, made under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, briefly 'the Act', for the period ending 30th September, 1965. There is also a prayer to quash the notice of demand of 23rd May, 1969, in pursuance of the assessment order.2. The facts appearing from the petition are as follows : The petitioner has been carrying on supply business of various items of ration to the Central Reserve Police units within the State of Assam for a number of years. The petitioner in response to a tender notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat, submitted a tender to supply various items of ration in Army Scale including 'meat on hoof'. 'Meat on hoof' is described in the tender notice as follows :5(d) Contractor shall be bound to supply different varieties of meat on hoof as per following ratio of the monthly requirement...

Tarulata Syam and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Goswamy, C.J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed originally against an order of assessment and notice of demand under Section 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, briefly the Act, dated November 26, 1965, for the assessment year 1955-56and an order of penalty of Rs. 10,000, demanded by notice dated September 10, 1966.2. Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, now confines his submission to the relief with regard to the order of penalty dated September 10, 1966. We are, therefore, not concerned in this proceeding with the assessment order. The order of penalty was imposed under Section 36(1) of the Act before its amendment by Assam Act IX of 1967. Section 36(1) of the Act, at the material time, reads as follows : ' 36. (1) When an assessee is in default in making a payment of agricultural income-tax, the Superintendent of Taxes or the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, direct that, in add...

Dakshinpat Satra and ors. Vs. Mohanlal Biyani and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1974CriLJ28

1. This is an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are three petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a Satra, petitioner No. 2 is the Satradhikar of the Satra. and petitioner No. 3 is the alleged lessee of the Satra.2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:The petitioners, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 21 of 1971 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat, against opposite party No. 2, M/s. Kothari Plantations and Industries Ltd-for restoration of Khas possession of the suit properties after evicting the defendant therefrom, for compensation and for appointment of a Receiver. Opposite party No. 2 filed a written statement and contested the suit. In the suit the petitioners filed an application on 31-1-1972 under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Receiver on the allegation that there was deterioration of the tea bushes for want of proper care, cultivation and manuring, for removal of seedlings an...

Dakshinpat Satra and ors. Vs. Mohanlal Biyani and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1974CriLJ28

ORDERBaharul Islam, J.1. This is an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are three petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a Satra, petitioner No. 2 is the Satradhikar of the Satra. and petitioner No. 3 is the alleged lessee of the Satra.2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:The petitioners, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 21 of 1971 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat, against opposite party No. 2, M/s. Kothari Plantations and Industries Ltd-for restoration of Khas possession of the suit properties after evicting the defendant therefrom, for compensation and for appointment of a Receiver. Opposite party No. 2 filed a written statement and contested the suit. In the suit the petitioners filed an application on 31-1-1972 under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Receiver on the allegation that there was deterioration of the tea bushes for want of proper care, cultivation and manuring, for r...