Guwahati Court June 1989 Judgments

Union of India (Uio) and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Singh

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J.1. The sole question for consideration in this second appeal is whether a notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, hereinafter the Act, will be invalid notice on account of mistake in the description of the forwarding station,2. The facts of the case, relevant for the purpose, can be stated thus : The plaintiff booked a consignment of hard coke from Pathardih Railway Station to New Gauhati. Some shortage was discovered at the time of taking delivery. The plaintiff served a notice under Section 78-B of the Act on the Railways claiming compensation. In the said notice all there quested particulars namely, R/R number, date* description of the goods, destination station, nature of the loss were correctly Stated. However, there was a mistake in stating the name of the forwarding station which was inadvertently shown to be 'Kusunda. When the notice was served on the Railways, the Railway Receipt (R/R) was already with them and as such they could detect the m...

J.K. Borooah Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1989)31ITD7(Gau.)

1. The appeals are by the assessee arising identical grounds of appeal, against the different orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The contention of the assessee is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals only on the ground that none appeared at the time of hearing. Against the penalty orders the assessee took up different appeals before the CIT (Appeals) who noted that the appeals were fixed on three occasions but the assessee did not attend on any date. The CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1980-81 vide order dated 26-3-1987 in appeal Nos. Dita-6/85-86 and Dib-13/85-86. Similar orders were passed by the CIT (Appeals) in respect of other years under different sections. Hence these appeals by the assessee.2. None appeared at the time when the case is called for hearing. It is seen that subsequently a telegram has been received from the...

State of Assam Vs. Hit Ram Deka

Court: Guwahati

S. Haque, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been initiated suo motu by this Court on perusal of the records of G. R. Case No. 3559 of 1986 and the order dt. 3-6-1988 passed in the case by the Judicial Magistrate Shri G. K. Sangmai, Gauhati.2. Initially case No. 486 was registered at Dispur Police Station on 28-10-1986 under Sections 366/312/313, I.P.C. on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Srimati Sabita Bala Das. Shri Hit Ram Deka was the named accused. Thereupon, the C.R. case No. 3559 of 1986 had been registered on the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet had been submitted against the accused to face the trial for commission of offences under Sections 376/312/313 of the Penal Code. Relevant documents with copy of the police report had been furnished to the accused as required !under the law. The case came to the file of Shri C.K. Santmai, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gauhati;3. The Magistrate took up the case...

Maniram Saikia Vs. Hira Bordoloi and ors.

Court: Guwahati

R.K. Manisana, J. 1. This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge Lakhimpur in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1982 dismissing the appeal. 2. TS No. 14 of 1979 was brought by Hira Bordoloi against Maniram Saikia, Thagiram Kalita and State of Assam in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Lakhimpur for declaration of his right, title and interest of an elephant. Maniram Saikia also instituted the TS No. 15 of 1979 against Hira Bordoloi, Thagiram Kalita and State of Assam in the Court of Assistant District Judge, North Lakhimpur for delearation of his right, title and interest in respect of theelephant which is the subject-matter of the suit, TS No. 14 of 1979, brought by Hira Bordoloi. The trial Court disposed of both the suits by a common judgment dismissing the suit brought by Maniram and decreeing the suit brought by Hira declaring his right in respect of the disputed elephant. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of.the Assistant District Judge, Manir...

Mohammed Safi Abdul Raheman Shaikh Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ...

Court: Guwahati

G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This petition was heard earlier by a Division Bench consisting of our learned brothers S. B. Majmudar and V.H. Bhairavia, JJ. on 2-5-1989. At that time various points were raised but only one point was pressed and other points were given up. The point that was raised on behalf of the petitioner was that after the petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board on 29-7-1988, he had sent a representation to the Board on 2-8-88. The said representation was received by the Board on 3-8-1988 but it had sent its report giving opinion against the detenu on 6-8-1988 without considering the representation and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner should be regarded as illegal. In view of this contention, the Division Bench had issued notice to the Advisory Board. On 5-5-1989 Mr. M. D. Pandya, Public Prosecutor appeared for the Advisory Board and made a statement that after hearing the detenu on 29-7-1988 the Board had alredy taken a decision on that day and only w...

Pachhunga Vs. Mrs. Zokhumi

Court: Guwahati

S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-6-80 passed by Judicial Officer, District Council Court, Aizawl in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1980. The appeal has been filed under paragraph 3 of Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954, for short the order. By the impugned judgment the learned lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment dated 23-2-80 of the trial Court, namely, Subordinate District Council Court. Aizawl in Case No. Misc. 41 of 1979. Under Schedule VI to the Constitution, the District Council Courts are constituted for trial of disputes where both parties are trible. As this is a second appeal, before entering into the merits of the case I may discuss the powers of this court in such appeal. Paragraph 3 of the Order runs as follows :-- 'An appeal against a final order or decision of District Council Courts in a civil suit where the valuation of the suit is Rs. 1000/ - or more shall lie to the High Court.' I am not co...

Shri Chong Norbu Lama Vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioners in each of these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution assail the decision of the respondents to treat the election held on 15-9-87 as cancelled; and the fresh election held on 6-10-87, for 'Gram Panchayat' from village Shergoan in the West Kameng District of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioners were candidates at the election of 'Gram Panchayat' held on 15-9-87. The petitioners allege that the group votes were not counted, the election process was notcompleted, and at the instance of higher authority fresh election as per notice dt. 1-10-87, were held on 6-10-87. The petitioners' contention is that the procedure adopted was against the rules and was illegal. 3. The respondent have refuted the allegations, and have stated that following the election held on 15-9-87, there was serious dissension among the candidates as to the method of counting of votes, and in anticipation of serious breach of law and order, the Deputy Commissioner a...

Braja Lal Banik Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of penalty dated September 2, 1980, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') for commission of offence under Section 10(b) of the Act and the orders passed in appeals confirming the same.2. The petitioner, a dealer carrying on business under the name and style of Auto Engineering Works, Agartala, is registered under the Central Act. In course of its business, the petitioner purchased from time to time certain goods at concessional rate by issuing C forms and submitted statements containing the requisite particulars of use and utilisation of C forms to the Superintendent of Taxes. On August 29, 1980, the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, issued a notice under Section 10-A of the Central Act stating, inter alia, that from information in his possession he was led to beli...

Studio Sen and Sen Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J.1. An important question of law has arisen for determination in this petition as to whether a dealer who purchased photographic materials and used the same in taking photographs and supplying prints thereof to his clients, which did not amount to sale, can be assessed to sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, on any supposed sale of the materials so used on the ground that the purchases were made at a concessional rate of tax on the strength of 'C' forms issued under the Central Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner is proprietor of a photo studio known as Studio Sen & Sen situated at Agartala. He carries on the business of buying and selling photographic goods and also buying photographic materials for use by him in taking photographs and supplying prints thereof to the customers or making enlargement of the photographs or making prints out of negatives supplied by his clients. A consolidated amount depending upon the work involved and the number of prints is charge...

Shri Chitta Ranjan Saha Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether 'pea-gravels' supplied by the petitioner falls within the category of goods described as 'metals, stone chips, any other products or sub-products arising out of bricks or stones' specified in item 29 of the Schedule of taxable goods attached to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.2. The petitioner, a Government contractor, is a dealer registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. During the relevant period the petitioner supplied pea-gravels to the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. (III), Udaipur, South Tripura, in pursuance of a work order issued by him. The petitioner submitted his returns of turnover under the Act for the relevant periods to the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, showing tax due as 'nil' on the ground that pea-gravels supplied by him did not fall in any of the taxable items described in the Schedule of taxable g...