Guwahati Court August 1981 Judgments
Akhil Chandra Bhowmik Vs. Gurdit Singh and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 15-12-73 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jorhat in M.A.C. Case No. 88/68.2. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim for compensation for the death of the claimant's son in a motor accident which occurred on 28-6-64. The learned Tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to discharge his burden to establish the identity of the 'offending vehicle' or the vehicle involving the accident. The claimant in his petition mentioned that the vehicle responsible for causing death of his son was a truck and set forth the registered number in his claim petition as ASJ 2254. However, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant had miserably failed to adduce any evidence to establish that vehicle No. ASJ 2254 was the vehicle responsible for the accident, to fasten liabilities on the insured, insurer or the driver of vehicle No. ASJ 2254.3. Mr. T. N. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on be...
Tag this Judgment!Badshah Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Lahiri, J. 1. The wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1965-66 due on June 30, 1965, was filed by the assessee on June 30, 1970. The WTO held that there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return by the due date and imposed a penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act at the rate of 2% per month on the tax payable subject to the maximum of 50% from July 1, 1965, to March 30, 1969, and at the rate of 1/2% of the net wealth reduced by the basic exemption, from April 1, 1969, to March 31, 1970. On appeal, the AAC turned down the claim of the assessee that he had reasonable cause for not filing the return by the due date. However, the AAC held that the amended provisions of the Act brought in by the Finance Act, 1969, would not apply and the penalty should be on the basis of the law that existed in the assessment year and accordingly directed that the penalty should be calculated at the rate of 2% of the net assessed tax from the date of the default. The revenue took the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Abhoy Charan Nath Mazumdar Vs. Smt. Raimya Devi and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Saikia, J.1. This propounder's probate first appeal is from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1972 refusing probate of the Will purported to be executed by Dulal Chandra Nath Muzumdar on 26-11-1948. For proper appreciation of the circumstances surrounding the Will the family genealogy is given below: Dulal Chandanj Nath Mazumdar (Died on 12-1-1949) (Will executed on 26-11-1948) | Atul Chandra Nath Mazumdar (Died on 17-12-1965) _________________________|_______________________________ | | | Kamla Devi Prema Devi Raimya Devi Wife (1) Wife (2) Wife (3) (Died in (Died in Respondent 13-5 B.S. 1944 A. D.) Objector | | (Defendant 1) | | | Abhay Charan | | Nath Mazumdar | | (Appellant) | | ___________________|________________________ | | | | | Aswini Kumar Effren Chandra Jogamaya Devi | (Defendant No 7) (Defendant No 8) (Defendant No 9) | (Non-Connecting | Defendant) | ____________________________________________________|______...
Tag this Judgment!State of Assam and ors. Vs. Naresh Chandra Das and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Lahiri, J. 1. This is an application Under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1963, for short 'the Act'. Based on the following premises, Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel has propounded that Section 5 of 'the Act' is not applicable in writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules and the application merits summary rejection :-- (I) The set of Rules framed by the High Court and styled as 'The Rules of the Gauhati High Court', for short 'the Rules', is not a law as it has not been made by the Legislature; (II) Assuming that it is a 'Law' it does not fall within the ambit of 'special law' referred in Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1953; (III) Rule 2 of 'the Rules' has not only created the right of writ appeal against the decision of a single Judge but it has also prescribed the period of limitation as 30 days which is the same as prescribed in Article 117 of 'the Act' for appeals to the High Court from the same Court Therefore. Rule 2 does not prescribe a per...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Basanta Kumar Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Lahiri, J. 1. We propose to dispose of the rules by a common order as they involve common questions of law and fact. These are applications under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, for short 'the Act', requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati, to refer to the High Court the following purported question of law arising out of the orders of 'the Tribunal'. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 2(23) and Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee, individual (......*1) was not the partner of the firm (......*2) and whetherthe share of profits arising in the hands of the minor sons of the assessee from the said firm is not rightly includible in the assessment of the assessee, individual under Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. [We have omitted the name of the assessee *1 and the name of the partnership firm *2 as they are different in the two d...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Ch. Kalita Vs. Chiddi Sau
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
S.M. Ali, J. 1. This revision petition is against the order dated 18-2-1980 passed by Shri Jaisingh Chetri, Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati in Misc. Case No. (J) 19 of 1979 setting aside the ex parte decree passed by him on 28-2-1979 in Title Suit No. 26 of 1978. The circumstances leading to this petition are as follows. The petitioner instituted ejectment suit being No. 26 of 1978 against the defendant-respondent for ejectment from the suit house and for recovery of arrear rent together with compensation amounting to Rs. 56.50 p. In that suit summons was issued to the defendant-respondent. It is alleged that he refused to accept the summons and the Process Server affixed a copy of the summons on the wall ofthe dwelling house of the respondent. But the court directed the summons to be served by registered post and accordingly the summons was issued to the respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due which was returned to the court with an endorsement by the postal peon to the effect ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Manipur Vs. S. Ngulsing Guite
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This is an application by the State of Manipur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and/or Under Section 439(2)/482 of the Criminal P. C, praying for setting aside and cancellation of the bail order dated 31-7-1981 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Imphal, in Criminal Misc, (Bail) Case No. 226 of 1981, granting bail to the accused-respondent Shri S. N. Guite and for committing him to custody.2. On the basis of a telephonic message received on 20-7-1981, at the Imphal Police Station to the effect that one Shri Bhaumik, Adviser, Agriculture Department, Manipur, was shot dead at his residence at Officers' Colony, Sanjenthong, by two unknown miscreants, the Imphal Police Station F.I.R. Case No. 41(7) 81 I.P.S. Under Section 121/121A/448/302, I. P. C, and Section 25, Arms Act and Section 13, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, was registered. It is stated in the petition that during the interrogation of the arrested accused persons,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramendra Narayan Singha Choudhury (Deceased by L. Rs.) and ors. Vs. St ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-04-1981
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The origin of the dispute can be traced to the year of India's first struggle for independence, which was in 1857. The case of the plaintiff is that in that fateful year his great grandfather Rai Bahadur Prithiram Choudhury had granted the entire village of Chaibari as dowry to his eldest daughter, Dayamoyee, which was a part of Lakheraj estate of Mechpara. Husband of Dayamoyee was late Raghunath Singha, whose son Golok Singha died leaving behind the plaintiff as one of his heirs. It seems, Chaibari though called a village, had 2526 Bighas 18 Krantis 7 Dhurs of land. As such, anybody would like to fight for it till, if possible, eternity, as hunger for land seldom diei. A dispute did arise among the heirs of Rai Bahadur Prithiram and by a 'Solenama' (compromise deed) executed on 16-12-1875 it was agreed that the parties would honour gift of 10 Hals of land (200 Bighas) in favour of each of the married daughters of the father of the family. The plaintiff, however,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›