Guwahati Court January 1980 Judgments

Jaskaran Lodha Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1981CriLJ103

1. Two, questions have been raised in this criminal revision:1. Whether a Magistrate is legally competent to send "the second part of the sample" to the Director of Central Food Laboratory when the Director had expressed in his report that "the first part of the sample sent to him was not found properly sealed, numbered and pasted"? and2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the criminal prosecution against the petitioner should be quashed?2. The allegation brought against the accused is that he sold adulterated "Mustard Oil" to the Food Inspector on 23-3-78. On obtaining a report of the Public Analyst dated 27-4-78 the Food Inspector upon obtaining permission from the Chief Medical and Health Officer lodged the complaint against the petitioner and arrayed 4 other persons as accused. The accused appeared in court on 14-8-78 and lodged an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as amended), hereinafter referred to as "the Ac...

Jaskaran Lodha Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1981CriLJ103

ORDERK. Lahiri, J.1. Two, questions have been raised in this criminal revision:1. Whether a Magistrate is legally competent to send 'the second part of the sample' to the Director of Central Food Laboratory when the Director had expressed in his report that 'the first part of the sample sent to him was not found properly sealed, numbered and pasted'? and2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the criminal prosecution against the petitioner should be quashed?2. The allegation brought against the accused is that he sold adulterated 'Mustard Oil' to the Food Inspector on 23-3-78. On obtaining a report of the Public Analyst dated 27-4-78 the Food Inspector upon obtaining permission from the Chief Medical and Health Officer lodged the complaint against the petitioner and arrayed 4 other persons as accused. The accused appeared in court on 14-8-78 and lodged an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as amended), hereinafter refe...

P.N. Sarmah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. The sole question referred to this court Under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for eliciting the opinion of this court is : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in refusing registration to the firm ' 2. The assessee is a firm. The relevant assessment year is 1968-69, corresponding previous year being Deewali Samvat, 2023. The assessee-firm filed an application in Form No. 11 of the I.T. Rules seeking registration Under Section 185 of the Act on October 30, 1961, and annexed therewith the instrument of partnership executed on November 12, 1967. As an abundant caution the assessee made another application on June 28, 1969, in Form No. HA, along with a memorandum of agreement dated October 30, 1967 praying for condonation of the delay in filing the same by a separate application. The partnership was constituted of 4 partners, namely, Purnananda Sarmah, Omprakash Sarmah, Vijoy Kumar Sarmah and Krishna K...

Radheshyam Tibrewall and Shree Ganeshdass Oil and Rice Mills Vs. Commi ...

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the declaration made by the creditors, viz., Smt. Swati Devi Jhunjhunwalla and Smt. Bhagwati Devi Tibrewalla, under the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 and accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the credits standing in the names of the :said creditors were correctly included by the Income-tax Officer in the total income of the assessee-petitioner as income from some undisclosed sources '2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati (' the Tribunal ' for short), has referred the above question along with the statement of the case for the opinion of this court; the Tribunal had refused to refer the question but the assessee moved this court and obtained a rule calling upon the Tribunal to refer the question as formulated by this court.3. Facts leading up to the reference : The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1962-63, rele...

Monoranjan Dey Vs. Dhirendra Chandra Paul and anr.

Court: Guwahati

B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The petitioner who was adefendant in Title Suit No. 8/78 filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 for discovery of certain documents. This prayer was rejected by the learned trial Court after having perused the reply on behalf of the plaintiff filed by one Subhas Chandra Paul claiming himself to be an attorney of the plaintiff in which it was stated that the plaintiff had no documents to produce. Against this order a petition was preferred under Rule 35 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Garo Hills District. The learned Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the same being of the view that the petition before him was not maintainable as it was against an interlocutory order. 2. Shri Das urges that the view taken by the learned Deputy Commissioner is erroneous inasmuch as the order against which he approached the learned Deputy Commissioner has to be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of first para of Rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules....

Abdul Samad Vs. the Executive Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parish ...

Court: Guwahati

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order of the Executive Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad, Marigaon, Settling (24) Lahorighat Bi-weekly Bazar with Ismail Hussain, respondent No. 5 in exercise of its power under the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. Mr. S. C. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervener (Shri Manai Basumatari) has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner ought not to be granted any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction as the petitioner has come to the court by skipping over his statutory remedy provided for in Section 1'38, Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, 'the Panchayati Act' for short, as there is alternative and efficacious remedy provided for in Section 138 of the Panchayati Act for getting full, adequate and efficacious relief from the authority constituted to hear matters under the said section. 3. Counsel submits that at all re...

Rupeswar Saikia Vs. Aniram Saikia and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. This is an application Under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. directed against an order dated 20-9-79 passed by Shri S. M. Deka, Assistant District Judge, Jorhat, in Title Appeal No. 26 of 1979 rejecting prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal, 2. It is indubitable that the judgment of the court of the first instance was delivered on 31-3-79 and the decree was drawn up on the same date though signed on 5-4-1979. It is also inescapable that the petitioner-appellant did not make any application for getting the certified copies of the judgment and decree until 3-5-79, The petitioner-appellant made an application for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree on 3-5-79 and presented the appeal on 5-5-79. 3. The petitioner-appellant made somewhat startling statement for condonation of the delay. According to the petitioner his marriage was solemnised on 18-2-79 and he continued to remain 'engrossed in his marriage' and did not take steps eit...

Mst. Sahadari and anr. Vs. Dasarath Shah and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. There have been many bouts of litigations between the parties to the present suits or their predecessors-in-interest. The first round of litigation is not very important for the purpose of the decision of the two appeals; but the second which was the subject matter of Title Suit No. 125/58 dees have material bearing. To appreciate the decision in that suit, it would be relevant to note the relationship between the parties. To put shortly, one Sewbharat Shah had three sons named Kalpuram, Anturam and Ganga Prasad. Kalpuram had among others Jamuna Prasad as one of his sons. Wife and son of Jamuna Prasad are the plaintiffs in the two suits with which we are concerned. Anturam had two grand-daughters Sahadari and Monohari. The third brother Ganga Prasad had Sahadei and Janaki as two daughters. Title Suit No. 125/58 was filed by Sahadari and Monohari claiming l/3rd share in the lands of Periodic Pattas 1 and 4, 1/2 share in lands covered by P. P. Nos. 18 and 122 and ...