Guwahati Court February 1982 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sirdir Pyara Sing and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Lahiri, J.1. In this appeal, the sole point urged before us is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ' the Tribunal', for short, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short ' the Act ', had no power to award 'interest' on compensation in a proceeding under Section 110 of the Act. No other point has been urged.2. The respondent lost his son aged about 23 years in a motor accident as far back as on May 16, 1965, and lodged his claim for compensation on May 23, 1965. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000 with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the compensation. The insurer, a nationalised insurance company, a public institution, has waged a battle, and questioned the payment of a paltry amount. The battle is 'uneven'--a public institution v. a private individual. Public bodies should resist the temptation of litigation like a cantankerous litigant for an insignificant amount raising tec...
Baidya Nath Sarma and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-04-1982
Lahiri, J. 1. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, for short 'the Commissioner', in exercise of his powers under Section 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, by a common order dated August 26, 1974, restricted the penalties imposed on the petitioner-assessee to 25% for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70. The assessee-petitioner has filed four writ applications questioning the validity of the order. As all the cases raise common questions of law and are based on similar facts we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. The petitioner contends that, (a) the impugned order has no backing or reasons and suffers from infirmity of non-application of the mind by. the authority to the requirements of the provisions of Section 18(2A) of 'the Act', (b) the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, and (c) his claim for waiver was turned down mechanically without due application of mind. 3. For late submissions of the returns the WTO imposed penalties on the assessee un...
Baidya Nath Sarma and Others Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Assam and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-04-1982
LAHIRI J. - The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, for short "the Commissioner" in exercise of his powers under section 18(2A)of the W.T. Act, 1957, by a common order dated August 26, 1974, restricted the penalties imposed on the petitioner-assessee to 25% for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70. The assessee-petitioner has filed four writ applications questioning the validity of the order. As all the cases raise common questions of law and are based on similar facts we propose to dispose of them by a common order.The petitioner contends that. (a) the impugned order has no backing or reasons and suffers from infirmity of non-application of the mind by the authority to the requirements of the provisions of section 18(2A) of "the Act", (b) the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, and (c) his claim for waiver was turned down mechanically without due application of mind.For late submissions of the returns the WTO imposed penalties on the asses...
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Community Dev. D ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-03-1982
Lahiri, J.1. This writ appeal is projected against the judgment and order D/-27-4-1981 passed in Civil Rule No. 93 of 1981.2. Natural justice is undoubtedly a brooding omnipresence because of the strides made by the Courts in India during the last two decades but the Courts have always struck a balance between the expansion of the Rule and the empirical socio-economic needs, public interest and the authority of the legislature. The never ending process of evolution has taken note of various checks and balances. In administrative law a prima faoie right to prior notice and opportunity to be heard may be held to be excluded by implication if any of the following facts is present, singly or in combination with another: (1) Where the functions of the competent authority are held to be non-judicial; (2) Where the authority in which is vested the power to decide is entrusted with a wide discretion; (3) Where the action taken constitutes denial of a privilege as distinct from interference wi...
Shree Hanuman Match Works and ors. Vs. the State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. Every law has 'promises to keep'. The courts have to interpret the laws to advance the object of the enactment. The Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), is one such statute. Section 24A(2) was inserted in it in 1967 'to give some relief to the manufacturing industries in the State' as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. While examining the - controversy at hand, we shall have, therefore, to see whether the relief provided by this section has been curtailed by any action of the executive qua those for whom it was actually meant keeping in view the fact that the industrial spectrum of this State really consists of small-scale units. Rule 46A of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Rules, 1956, was first framed in 1969 to give effect to the legislative mandate in Section 24A(2). This rule was substituted by a new set of rules in 1971. It is this rule which is under challenge in these petitions. The gauntlet has been thrown by some 'de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›