Guwahati Court August 1980 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.
Mangal Chand Chauhan Vs. Ratan Lal Nahata
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-28-1980
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this revision lie within a narrow compass. A suit for malicious prosecution was filed by the petitioner which came to be fixed for hearing on 16-7-79. On that day the plaintiff was present with six witnesses and he filed a petition to fix another date to record evidence of two witnesses mentioned in the petition. This prayer was reiected as would appear from the endorsement of the learned trial Court on the bodv of the petition itself. This has led the plaintiff to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Shri Sarma has urged that though a matter relating to granting an adjournment is within the discretion of Court, the same has to be exercised judicially and by taking into consideration all relevant materials. In the present case his submission is that the learned trial Court disposed of the petition for adjournment by one word 'reiected' passed on the body of the petition and such a disposal cannot be regarded in accordance...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Padma Ram Bharali and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-27-1980
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to submit the statement of the case on the following question, supposedly question of law, for decision at this end : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Explanation thereto, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied in respect of Rs. 24,591, which was doubly debited in the purchase accounts (Hindusthan Lever Goods) ?' 2. The relevant facts necessary for a disposal of the application may be compacted as under : The assessee, an HUF, submitted its return of income on December 13, 1968, showing total income of Rs. 66,369. On February 2, 1970, a revised return was submitted showing an income of Rs. 1,61,607. In the revised re...
Gendra Brahma and ors. Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1980
N. Ibotombi Singh, J1. Six accused were put on trial for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 and 302/34, Penal Code, before the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 3 (K)/74. The learned Sessions Judge convicted 4 accused, namely, Cendra, Brahma, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 47 (J) of 1975, Karendra Nath Brahma, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 48 (J) of 1975, Shri Magon Basumatary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 49 (J) of 1975 and Shri Janaki Basumatary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 50(J) of 1975 for offence of murder of one Abhiram Barguari of village Singimari punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year each. They were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201, Penal Code and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a...
Arabinda Das and Etc. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-1980
Pathak, C. J. (Acting) 1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the W/T message dated 22-2-80 issued by the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam with Memo No. VFF. 465/79/134-A dated 22-2-80 under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department directing all Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers not to open the tenders received by them or to make settlement of the fishery without prior clearance from the Government. 2. The facts leading to the present petitions converge on a very narrow compass. The petitioners in both the petitions are members of the Scheduled Caste and belong to Kaivarta family selling fish in the market and dealing in fishery business. The Deputy Commissioner of Dibrugarh issued a notice of sale of fisheries of the Dibrugarh District on 12-2-80 inviting lenders on or before 20-3-80 for settlement of as many as six registered fisheries for the pe...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Kanta Devi Taneja and Laxmi Devi Taneja
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
D. Pathak, Actg. C.J. 1. These two cases are referred under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'). As in both the cases the following identical question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court, they are dealt with together. The question of law is ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of the deceased in the value of the goodwill of the firm is not included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased and whether on that basis the Tribunal was justified in deleting Rs. 18,250 as added by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in the assessment ?' 2. The broad facts are that Ram Rang Taneja of Gauhati died in a car accident on August 8, 1971. At the time of his death, he held 50% share in the partnership of M/...
Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-06-1980
Saikia, J. 1. This writ application impugns the order dated 5-5-80 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, in Case No. 7RA(F)/80 admitting the appeal and staying the operation of the order appealed against, namely, the order dated 3-5-80 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh allowing the petitioner. Dehing Part I Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter 'the petitioner Society') to operate fishing at Merlegona-Khana Fishery (hereinafter 'the Fishery') until further orders pending settlement of the Fishery by the Government. Tha question required to be decided is whether the appeal is maintainable in the Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter 'the Board') against an order of interim arrangement in respect of a fishery pending settlement? In other words, whether the Board has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner making an interim arrangement in respect of a fishery pending settlement? 2. The petitioner society is a F...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›