Guwahati Court February 1979 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.
Baidya Nath Sah Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
B.N. Sarma, J.1. The petitioner Baidya Nath Sah, a dealer in food-stuff at Panigaon within Nowgong Municipality was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgong under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to R. I. for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to R. I. for 2 months. In appeal the Sessions Judge, Nowgong having affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, he has come up with the present revision petition.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 5-6-1971 Dr. M.D. Sadullah (P. W. 1) who is the Urban Health Officer of Nowgong Municipality took 375 ml. mustard oil as sample from the shop of the petitioner by observing the necessary formalities. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Assam, for examination. The Public Analyst submitted a report after examination of the sample that it was adulterated as the sample was found to v...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Lachmi Devi Chowkhani and Banwaril ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Baharul Islam, J.1. These three references arise out of common facts and circumstances and are between the same parties. We shall, therefore, dispose of them by this common order.2. The assessee, Smt. Lachmi Devi Chowkhani, is a 50% partner in the firm, Messrs. Joharmal Muralidhar & Co. that owns, amongst other business, a tea estate, known as Mahadeobari Tea Estate. The firm did not maintain separate balance-sheet for the tea estate and other business, but maintained one consolidated balance-sheet for the years in question, namely, 1960-61 to 1967-68. It was claimed by the assessee that she had liability for agricultural income-tax and also had loans by hypothecation of tea crops, etc; that she was entitled to the deduction of her income-tax liabilities and loans on hypothecation from the assessment of net wealth. The WTO, however, rejected her claim holding that agricultural income was debt incurred in relation to the agricultural assets which were exempt from the wealth-tax and tha...
Kamal Chandra Dutta Etc. Vs. Ram Chandra Goala and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Baharul Islam, J.1. These two Miscellaneous Second Appeals which arise out of the same impugned order, are directed against the order of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati, made in his appellate jurisdiction against an order passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2 of Gauhati on an application under Section 144 of the Civil P. C. The points of law involved are also common. So this order of mine will dispose of both of them.2. Radha Mohan Goenka was the plaintiff in the original suit. He brought the suit No. 61 of 1971 against the sole defendant, Ram Chandra Goala, for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the suit land in the court of Munsiff No. 1 at Gauhati. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Munsiff No. 2, Gauhati, and it was numbered as Title Suit No. 15 of 1971. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant in the suit on 13-11-1971. The plaintiff-decree-holder executed the decree and evicted the defendant on ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›