Guwahati Court July 1981 Judgments
State of Assam Vs. Rabindra Nath Guha
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. The true role of a Judge trying a criminal case has been underscored by the Supreme Court in : 1981CriLJ609 , Ramchander v. State of Haryana. Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Supreme Court has outlined instructive guidelines for the trying Judges which must put all the Judges, on gear. Drawing inspirations from 'The History of English Law' by Pollock and Maitland to Jones v. National Coal Board (1957) 2 All ER 155 : (1957) 2 WLR 760 and instructive observations of his Lordship in ILR (1972) Andh Pra 683 : 1972 Cri LJ 1485, Sessions Judge, Nellora v. Intha Ramana Reddy, it has been ruled that in adversary system of trial which we have in India, the trying Judge should shun the role of 'a referee' or 'an umpire' to permit the prosecution and the defence to combat in the legal arena. He should assume an active role in the proceedings.''The trial Judge must be an effective instrument in dispensing justice; he must cease to be a spectator, a mere recording machine. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Joginder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. These petitions are under art. 226 of the Constitution of India and are directed against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner, Wealth-tax, under Section 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, hereinafter 'the Act'. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee and he submitted his wealth-tax return for the, assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 on June 11, 1973, under Section 14(1) of the Act. As the petitioner had filed his returns late, he submitted a petition on June 21, 1973, to the learned Commissioner Under Section 18(2A) of the Act for waiver of the penalty imposable under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. By the impugned order the learned Commissioner has rejected the prayer on the ground that according to him the assessee had not made a full disclosure, which is one of the essential conditions for an invocation of the power under the aforesaid section of law. What happened was that the petitioner in his wealth-tax return had disclosed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ka Dymmiew Silty Giri Vs. U. Moonly Passah
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
1. We have noticed certain shortfalls in the proceedings which cannot be overlooked. To obtain relief under the Divorce Act, 1869, for short, 'the Act', the conditions set out in the provisions of 'the Act' must be strictly complied by the parties. The Act is applicable to the partie? who profess Christian religion. However, if one of the parties profess Chritian faith it would give jurisdiction to the Court to give relief under 'the Act'. Dissolution of a marriage is a serious thing and the Court trying matrimonial cases should carefully follow the provisions of 'the Act'. The grounds on which a Christian marriage may be dissolved have been set forth in Section 10 of 'the Act'. Section 11 makes it obligatory on a husband, in a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery, to make the adulterer a co-respondent unless he is exempted or excused by the Court on one of the three grounds mentioned in the Section. Leave for such 'excuse' must be applied for and duly obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Kartar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee. He was late in filing returns for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70. The respondent No. 2, therefore, issued show-cause notice on the petitioner as to why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner thereupon approached the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (respondent No. 1) stating that as the petitioner had voluntarily and in good faith made a full disclosure of his net wealth, the penalty may be waived under the power conferred on the former by Section 18(2A) of the Act. The learned Commissioner went through the facts of the case and stated in his impugned order that all the conditions laid down in Section 18(2A) of the Act were satisfied. He thereafter stated as below: 'There has been delay in filing the return and keeping in view that the assessee himself has voluntarily disclosed the fact of his owning taxable wealth in these years. I am of t...
Tag this Judgment!Hav. Dengzirliana Vs. Lalthankimi and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-07-1981
Lahiri, J. 1. The Mizos have their own life-style and culture. They have a carefree and liberal way of living, and it has the sanction of their society. However, the liberal ways of social order is possible as they have a highly civilized and sophisticated custom and customary laws. They derive their force by long usage. These have been acted upon in practice from time immemorial with such invariability as to show that most of them have been acted upon in practice as to show that they have, by common consent ripened into governing rules of the Mizos. These rules maintain a status quo and act as brakes, checks and barricades and prevent them to misuse their social liberty and freedom. The liberal social order it possible to be kept within bounds by the village elders because they have the backing of a forceful custom and customary law honoured and respected by all of them. Even making love to a girl just for fun is punishable. Touching a woman in some sensitive parts of the body is pun...
Tag this Judgment!Yandrambam Sonachand Singh Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-06-1981
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. Detention laws undoubtedly curtail the liberty of citizens. These laws have nonetheless been regarded as necessary because the State must have some machinery to prevent harm to the society. But then, these have been characterised as evil also, not to speak of their being draconian. We have to consider the question posed in this case in this background. The question is as to when can the grounds be Said to have been communicated to a detenu.2. The broad facts alone ' may be noted to answer this question. The same is that the petitioner had been arrested, according to him, on 9-4-1981 and was once bailed out on 22-4-1981 to be arrested again on the same day in connection with some other case. He was ordered to be released on bail in that case on 7-5-1981 and after he had furnished necessary bail bonds etc. respondent No, 3 refused to release him on the ground that an order of detention under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Madhab Ch. Chakraborty Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-01-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. This is a habeas corpus application. The petitioner was detained, under order of the District Magistrate, Kamrup made Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, 'for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order'. The detenu was detained on (illegible) and on the same date the grounds of detention were served on him. He made representation to the Government which was rejected. His case was heard by the learned Advisory Board. Acting on the opinion of the learned Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the order of detention on 14-6-81'.2. The allegations against the petitioner as revealed in the grounds of detention may be summarised as follows:1) That he was, at all relevant periods, an active supporter of ASSU and AAGSP and a Member of the Anchalik Karmachari Parishad; (2) That he had been injured while 'experimenting with a homemade cartridge in a country-made gun'; (3) That he was engaged in the activities like colle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›