Guwahati Court March 1989 Judgments

Joharmal Murlidhar and Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1990)32ITD204(Gau.)

1. The second and third grounds of appeal by the assessee are not pressed by the assessee's learned counsel at the time of hearing.Hence, these are not considered.2. The point left for our consideration is that the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in not considering all the facts of the case and also the written submission made before him and that the C.I.T. (Appeals) should have considered the order passed by the predecessor C.I.T. (Appeals) dated 28-7-83 whereby payment of Rs. 8700 was directed by the then C.I.T.(Appeals) to be considered as advance tax.3. The facts of the case was that the assessment was completed earlier by the I.A.C. (Assessment). The assessee moved the Commissioner of Income-tax, N.E. Region, Shillong under Section 264. Copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 dated 31-1-81 has not been placed before us. It appears that the Commissioner of Income-tax held the view that the payment of Rs. 8700 should not be treated as advance tax. That order ap...

Smt. Alimon Nessa and ors. Vs. Sudhir Chandra Dey and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Homchoudhuri, J. 1. This First Appeal by the defendants Nos. 3 to 7 is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 29th Jan., 1980 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat in T.S. No. 51/76 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract by the defendant/respondent Shri Mirza Zamal Hussain. The defendant-appellants Nos. 3 to 7 are the heirs and legal representatives of late Mohfil Hussain, the step brother of defendant respondent Shri Mirza Zamal Hussain. Defendant- respondent Smti Aklima Khatun is the step-mother of Mirza Zamal Hussain.2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted a Title Suit No. 51/76 in the Court of learned Asstt. District Judge for specific performance of contract by the defendant-respondent, Mirza Zamal Hussain to sell the suit property comprising of land measuring 1K 2L with houses, latrine standing thereon, fully described in the Schedule 'A' to the plaint, in terms of written contract dated 23-4-76. Plaintiffs case was that defend...

Samir Ranjan Barman Vs. Bhanu Lal Saha

Court: Guwahati

S. Haque, J. 1. This petition by the respondent No. 1 (Election Petition No! 3 of 1988) is purported to be made under provisions of Section 86 of the Rule P. Act read with Order VIII, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing/rejection of the Election Petition on the grounds raised in paras 2, 4 and 5, However, for the reasons recorded in the orders dated 6th and 7th December, 1988 the petitioner is not going to press the grounds under paras 4 and 5 presently. Now, we are left for consideration of the grounds of para 2. The allegation in para 2 reads as :-- 'That the petitioner has failed to comply with the special provisions relating to the procedure in Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 of theGauhati High Court Rules as embodied, in Chapter VIII-A of the said Rules in as much as the Election Petition, at the time of presentation was not accompanied by envelopes bearing requisite postage stamps to enable service to be effec...

Rohiteswar Saikia Vs. Tonu Konwar and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Manisana, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for striking out pleading contained in paras 4 to 23, 29, 30, 32, 34, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the election petition on the ground that allegations in those paras do not disclose cause of action and pleading contained in paras 39, 40, 41 and 47 have not been verified. 2. It is settled that on a combined reading of Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), for short the 'Act', those paragraphs of the election petition which do not disclose any cause of action are liable to be struck out under Order 6, Rule 15, CPC as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike/out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or which may tend to prejudice, embarras or delay the fair trial of the petition, or which otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. However, a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is no...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satyanath Hazarika and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.L. Hansaria, J.1. This 5-Judge Bench has been constituted to consider whether certain observations made by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Hira Devi v. Bhaba Kanti AIR 1977 Gauhati 31 needs reconsideration in view of the later pronouncement of this Supreme Court in Puspabai v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. : [1977]3SCR372 . It may be stated that the case of Hira Devi had to be placed before a Full Bench of 3 Judges because of a reference by a Division Bench which was of the view that there is a difference of opinion expressed in Assam Corporation v. Binu Rant AIR 1975 Gauhati 3 and Asha Rant v. The Commonwealth Assurance Company Ltd. MA (F) 4t of 1969 disposed of on 21-2 1974 on the question as to whether an insurer is liable to pay compensation in case of death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger. What is required to be determined by this Bench is whether an insurer can be asked to indemnify an insured who has been made liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bo...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satyanath Hazarika and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Hansaria, J. 1. This 5-Judge Benchhas been constituted to consider whether certain observations made by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Hira Devi v. Bhaba Kanti, AIR 1977 Gauhati 31 need reconsideration in view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., AIR 1977 SC 1735. It may be stated that the case of Hira Devi had to be placed before a Full Bench of 3 Judges because of a reference by a Division Bench which was of the view that there is a difference of opinion expressed in Assam Corporation v. Binu Rani, AIR 1975 Gauhati 3 and Asha Rani v. The Commonwealth Assurance Company Ltd. (MA (F) 41/69 disposed of on 21-2-1974) on the question as to whether an insurer is liable to pay compensation in case of dealth or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger. What is required to be determined by this Bench is whether an insurer can be asked to indemnify an insured who has been made liable tp pay compensation in respect of death or bodil...

Gulabrai Hanumanbux and anr. and Keshoram Radheshyam and anr. Vs. Weal ...

Court: Guwahati

A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The subject in this group of fifteen writ petitions relates to two Hindu undivided families, one is known as Gulabrai Hanumanbux with karta Shri Laxmi Prasad and the other, Keshoram Radheshyam with karta Keshoram Agarwalla. The two joint families together purchased in 1965, a plot of land measuring 14k, 14L, 28Ch. at 28C, Rowland Road, at Calcutta, for Rs. 1,69,500. Between the calendar years 1968 and 1971, the two together constructed a three-storeyed building. The two families own the land and the building in equal moieties. According to them, in 1966-67, they spent Rs. 5,139.04 before the construction commenced. In the calendar year 1968-69, they spent Rs. 1,07,425,21, in 1969-70 Rs. 70,142.09, in 1970-71 Rs. 1,03,019.11, in 1971-72 Rs. 61,764.65 and in 1972-73 Rs. 19,372.56. Thus a total sum of Rs. 3,66,862.66 was spent over the construction of the building. The amounts expended were the subject of income-tax assessments and assessments under the Wealth-tax A...

The United Commercial Bank, Silchar Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh and anr.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant-Bank is directed against judgment and decree dated 24-3-1981 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Silchar in Title Suit No. 48 of 1980. 2. A suit was filed by the appellant as plaintiff against the respondent No. 1 who was a borrower, and another who was a guarantor for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,394.29 with interest pendente lite, future interest and costs. The appellant had advanced a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of loan to the respondent on hypothecation of a truck of which the aforesaid amount was outstanding being a part of a principal amount with interest up to the date of filing of the suit. An ex parte order of attachment before judgment of the hypothecated truck was also obtained by the appellant. The defendant No. 1 who was the borrower, admitted the claim and filed a petition before the Court to decree the suit on admission without pendente lite interest and cost and to accept it as decretal amount from the defendant...