Guwahati Court March 1983 Judgments

Hazarat Ali and Etc. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Lahirl, J. 1. The State unsettled the settlement of Rupohi Bazar, made by the Executive Committee of the Nowgong Mahkuma Parishad, and authority constituted under the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 and 'the Rules' framed thereunder. The Mahkuma Parishad settled 'the Bazar' with the petitioner. The State, has settled 'the bazar' with respondent No. 6 Abdul Hakim Moral, after cancelling the settlement made by the Mahkuma Parishad. Hazarat Ali, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Government, in purported exercise of its power under Section 138 of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, for short 'the Act', as well as another co-tenderer, Abdul Khaleque, have preferred two separate writ applications against the common order passed by the Government. The order of settlement in favour of respondent Abdul Hakim and cancellation of settlement with the petitioner was made by the State Government in a composite order. As both the petitioners have come up against the same impugned order and ...

Bharat Trading Co. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1984CriLJ106

1. These two Criminal Revisions are directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Cachar, in Criminal Appeal No. 47(2) of 1982, arising out of the order of confiscation dt. June 10, 1982, passed by the Collector, Cachar, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(hereinafter called the Act). Criminal Revision No- 188 of 1982 is filed by the firms M/s. Bharat Trading Company and M/s. Jain Trading Company, both of Panpati, Silchar Town and Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1982 is filed by the State of Assam.2. By an order dt. June 10, 1982, the Collector. Cachar. confiscated 7099 tins of refined rapeseed oil seized on 6-5-1982 from the stock of the two firms under Section 6A of the Act on being satisfied that there has been contravention of Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 8 of the Assam Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers (Licensing and Control) Order, 1977(briefly called the Control Order). After affording the parties an opportunity of being heard as provided ...

Jagdish Prasad Awasthi Vs. Smt. Sabitri Devi

Court: Guwahati

S.M. Ali, J.1. This petition arises from a Complaint Case No. C.R. 559 of 1982 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Tezpur under Section 420, I.P.C.2. The complainant O.P. lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that she obtained a loan from the branch of Allahabad Bank at Tezpur in connection with her purchase of a truck (No. AMD 213) and that taking advantage of this transaction the accused-petitioner who was the Branch Manager of the Bank obtained her signatures in four blank sheets. It is also her allegation that there was a dispute between the accused on the one hand and her firm 'Calutta Roadways' on the other. It is her apprehension that the accused-petitioner could prepare documents in those blank sheets against her interest and might land her in troubles. This, according to the complainant, was done by the accused-petitioner with the intention of cheating her. The accused also obtained signatures in blank papers of three witnesses, namely, U...

Bharat Trading Co. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1984CriLJ106

ORDERN. Ibotombi Singh, J.1. These two Criminal Revisions are directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Cachar, in Criminal Appeal No. 47(2) of 1982, arising out of the order of confiscation dt. June 10, 1982, passed by the Collector, Cachar, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(hereinafter called the Act). Criminal Revision No- 188 of 1982 is filed by the firms M/s. Bharat Trading Company and M/s. Jain Trading Company, both of Panpati, Silchar Town and Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1982 is filed by the State of Assam.2. By an order dt. June 10, 1982, the Collector. Cachar. confiscated 7099 tins of refined rapeseed oil seized on 6-5-1982 from the stock of the two firms under Section 6A of the Act on being satisfied that there has been contravention of Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 8 of the Assam Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers (Licensing and Control) Order, 1977(briefly called the Control Order). After affording the parties an opportunity o...

J.K. Baruah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. 2. In compliance with the direction of the High Court made in Civil Rule 1(M) of 197-5, the learned Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and forwarded the same, along with the question which the High Court had formulated for determination. We extract the question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or basis for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to hold that the penal provisions of the Act under Section 271(1)(a) were attracted ?' The reference is from the order of the Tribunal passed under Section 254 of 'the Act'. It is needless to say that our jurisdiction is only advisory and not appellate. It is also beyond question that a reference to this court is only competent on a question of law. This court cannot go beyond the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal. Howeve...

Kusha Chandra Sarna and ors. Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Guwahati

K.N. Saikia, J.1. This batch of analogous writ applications impugn the following order dated 23-2-i9S3 of the District Magistrate, Darrang, Tezpur:Whereas it has been reported that large number of firearms are used in communal riots and arson in the district of Darrang by the miscreants and that many persons have been killed by gun shots, the arms and ammunitions are being used for unlawful purpose.It is therefore ordered under Section 22 of the Arms Act, 19S9 that all Licence holders are to deposit their arms and ammunitions with the Licence in the nearest Police Station/Outpost within 48 hours of passing this order. The police officers are fully authorised and empowered to search/seize all arms and ammunitions and deposit in the respective Malkhana.Any disregard of this order will render to prosecution as per law.2. Mr. P.K. Barua, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 104/83, submits, inter alia, that the impugned order is a general one which is not contemplated ...

Deputy Commissioner Vs. Mamat Kaibarta (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. We propose to dispose of the appeals by a common judgment as they arise out of a common award made by the Arbitrator under the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and involve common questions of fact and law. The Arbitrator awarded compensation for acquisition of land @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha fixed the annual recurring compensation for the requisitioned period at Rs. 200/- per bigha and also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land till the final payment. 2. By Notification dated 22-7-67 lands belonging to the Respondents were requisitioned and possession was taken over on 4-5-1968. Thereafter the competent authority acquired the lands on 24-6-1971 under the provisions of 'the Act'. The Deputy Commissioner awarded recurring annual compensation for the land at rates ranging from Rs. 45/-to Rs. 60/- per bigha, according to the classifications of the lands and awarded acquisition comp...

Manoranjan Haldar Vs. Mechfab Engineering Industries

Court: Guwahati

S.M. Ali, J.1. This application under Section 401 and/or 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 15.10.81 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati in Case No. 1666/81 and for quashing the proceeding pending in the court of the judicial Magistrate vide the aforesaid case.2. The opposite party filed a complaint petition in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Gauhati on 28.8.82, against the accused-petitioner alleging that the complainant is a partner of M/s. Mechfab Engg, Industries having its head office and place of business at Zoo Road, Gauhati and being a firm manufacturing steel articles. On 3.7.81 the accused-petitioner placed an order with the firm for supply of 27 Nos. of G.I. Tank valued at Rs. 64,500/-. In pursuance of which the accused-petitioner paid an advance amouts of Rs. 30,000/- to the firm by a Bank cheque D/-3.7.81 which was duly encased by the firm Against the order of supply the complainant firm issued 27 Nos. of M. Section Moulds for P.S.C. ...

Jamini Mohan Acherjee Vs. Santosh Kumar Roy

Court: Guwahati

1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed on 4-10-1980 by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Agar-tala, in Title Suit No. 73 of 1978. By the impugned order the learned Munsiff in-juncted the defendant-petitioner not to obstruct the plaintiff-respondent from taking eleclric connection to his house situated on Schedule 'A' land of the plaint by taking the electric lines over the Schedule 'B' land. This order was passed on an applicationfiled under Section 151, C. P. G. by- the plaintiff-respondent in which it was, inter alia, mentioned that the plaintiff had got permission for electric connection in his homestead and that there was no other way to take the electric lines except by drawing them over the Schedule 'B' land. It was further staled in the petition that the defendant-petitioner filed an objection before the S. D. O., Electric Division, whereupon work of carrying oui the electrical installation was stayed. The plaintiff-respondent in the same application also allud...

Elam Ongbi Meipakpi Devi and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.

Court: Guwahati

K. Lahiri, J.1. We find that the case is covered by the decision of their Lordships in Yumnam Mangibabu Singh v. State of Manipur reported in : 1983CriLJ445 . In the present case as well, the detenu is a young college student of P.U. Class of Maharaja Budhachandra College at Imphal. He claims that he is a law abiding person and has had no connection with any of the allegations for which he has been detained under Section 3, National Security Act, 1980, for short 'the Act'.2. Various points have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but we propose to take up the main successful challenge by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Constitutional safeguards of making an effective representation against the detention; which is available to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the statutory safeguards under Section 8 of 'the Act' have been breached, as copies of the vital documents which were the basic materials on which the detaining authority arrived at i...