Guwahati Court August 1989 Judgments

Rameswar Bora and anr. Vs. Dakshinpat Satra and anr.

Court: Guwahati

1. This appeal is by two defendants in Title Suit No. 17/74 on the file of the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. Rameswar Bora an advocate and his son Dilipeswar Bora both are defendants in the suit and appellants in the appeal. The suit was laid against them for possession of land which in the plaint is described by boundaries and is said to measure 1200 bighas (99.18 acres). Out of the said land 72 acres is under tea cultivation. The suit land is known as Jadavpur Tea Estate at Holongapar Mouza in Jorhat district. The father and son are tenants of Jadavpur Tea Estate. Their lessor is Shri Shri Jadavrai Devata along with a religious institution Satra to whom in the distance past Ahomings granted inter alia the land for establishment and maintenance of a Satra. The grant is now known as Lakheraj Bho-gobani Debottar grant. 2. The suit is laid by the Satra Adhikar Ramananda Dev Goswami. The father among the two defendants is said to be disciple of Satra Adhikar. The lease of the land c...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Welford Transport (Eastern I ...

Court: Guwahati

J.M. Srivatava, J.1. This appeal by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.2.82 passed by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Gauhati.2. The respondent in this appeal who was the petitioner before the Employees' Insurance Court, hereafter referred as the 'Court' had challenged the order dated 26.6.79 passed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereafter the 'Corporation' whereby recovery of damages for delay in payment of contribution by the employer petitioner had been ordered. The petition was opposed by the Corporation and its Regional Director. The Court had framed necessary issues and after consideration of the evidence-produced, the court held by the impugned judgment and order that the Regional Director who made the impugned order dated 26.6.79 had no power under the provisions of Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948, hereafter the Act to impose damages. The court also held ...

Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Government ...

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. In these two writ petitions the important question of law that arises for consideration relates to the nature, scope and ambit of the powers and duties of the Superintendent of Taxes in the matter of making an assessment under Section 9(3) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. As the facts and questions of law involved in both the petitions are identical they are taken up together.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a business run under the name and style of Bijli House at Agartala and carries on the business of selling and supplying electrical goods, radios and parts thereof. He also undertakes works contracts. In respect of the aforesaid business, he is registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (shortly 'the Act'). The petitioner submitted his returns of turnover from time to time showing turnover for each quarter and paid the sales tax due on the basis thereof. Returns were so submitted for the years ending March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979, March...

Steel Industries Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of assessment dated July 30, 1987, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, for the years ending 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 levying sales tax on the ground that the sales made by him during the relevant period were exempt from sales tax under Section 3(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter 'the Act'), read with the Tripura State Scheme for Incentives to Industrial Units, 1984.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had been carrying on a small-scale industrial unit since September 26, 1983, under the name and style of Steel Industries at Agartala. The same is also registered with the Department of Industries, Government of Tripura, The petitioner started production in the said industrial unit and made sales of the products thereof. On the sales so made, sales tax was also collected. The petitioner could later learn that there was a scheme named the Tripura State Scheme for Incentives t...

Moheema Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee. Its assessment for the year 1977-78 was completed on March 22, 1979, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and a sum of Rs. 813 was found refundable on account of excess payment of advance tax. A rectification proceeding was subsequently initiated. This was relatable to the loss of the previous year which was not set off. The assessment was accordingly modified and a sum of Rs. 35,696 became refundable. The petitioner claimed interest up to the date of rectification which was January 5, 1981, This was disallowed. A revision was, thereafter, preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax who also refused to pay interest up to the date of rectification. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed by the assessee. 2. The question for determination is whether interest in a case of the present nature was payable till the date of rectification or the entitlement of the assessee to receive i...

Madan Singh Vs. Taiyab Hussain

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Munsiff, Jorhat in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (1963) hereinafter 'the Act'. The operative part of the judgment reads : 'The suit is decreed on contest against the defendant No. 1 with costs. The plaintiff shall get khas possession of the suit land as shown in the schedule of the plaint by demolishing any construction thereon raised by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 by way of permament injunction is restrained from raising any construction over the suit land.' 2. The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that it is in excess of the power vested in the Court under Section 6 of the Act. 3. Before dealing with the legal submission, the facts of the case may be briefly stated. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Jorhat under Section 6 of the Act. His case was that he was in possession of the suit land for last twenty years and had ...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.C. Gupta and Sons Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

1. The instant reference pertains to two idols, Sri Radha and Sri Krishna at Cachar. The two idols were installed by Baikuntha Gupta, a tea estate holder called Star Tea Estate in Sylhet town in Sylhet district of undivided Bengal in pre-partition days.2. Baikuntha Gupta, by a gift deed executed on July 2, 1915, endowed Rs. 2,90,000 and appointed Messrs. B. C. Gupta and Sons, the manager of the Star Tea Estate as trustee of the two idols. After the partition of India, Sylhet became part of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The two idols are in India in the Cachar District of Assam in the Republic of India. 3. In iacome-tax assessment proceedings for 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70, a question arose whether the idols are one unit of assessment. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on February 15, 1974, held that the two idols are to be assessed separately for Sri Krishna was born at Mathura on 8th Bhadra of the dark half of the lunar month of Thretha Yuga, year not known. His father was Basud...

Smt. Aparajita Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Mukherjee and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Manisana, J. 1. This appeal arises from an order dated 29 October, 1988 of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala made in Civil Misc. Case No. 87 of 1988 arising out of T. S. No. 19 of 1987 pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge, West Tripura. 2. The respondent 1 filed T. S. No. 19 of 1987 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for partition. The suit is pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge. During the Puja Vacation, the District Judge made an arrangement for holding Courts from 26 October, 1988 to 12 November, 1988. Under that arrangement Mr. M. K. Singh, the Additional Sadar Munsiff Agartala, was in-charge of the Sub-Judge during that period. However, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order of injunction on 29 October, 1989. 3. Mr. B. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the ex parte interim injunction was passed by the District Judge without any jurisdiction; and that learned District Judge while passing the orders has no...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ka Synshar Baren and ors.

Court: Guwahati

R.K. Manisana Singh, J.1. This batch of appeals, namely, M.A. (F) Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, 37 and 38 of 1987 and MA (F) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15 to 20, 26, 29, 32, 34, 35 and 36 of 1988, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they are from a common judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong in MAC. Case Nos. 3 to 11, 14, 18, 19, 22, 30, 33, 36, 37, 42, 43 and 51 of 1983. The appeals of 1987 were filed by the insurance company and the appeals of 1988 were filed by the Meghalaya Transport Corporation, for short 'the MTC.2. The brief facts of the case are thus. This bus bearing registration mark MLX 222 belongs to the MTC. On 30.8.1982, while the bus was carrying passengers, it met with an accident. As a result of the accident eight passengers died and some other passengers who were travelling in the same bus received injuries. In all, 38 claim cases were filed. All those claim cases were tried jointly and...

Bhauram Jodhraj and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1990)32ITD728(Gau.)

1. The cross objections have been filed by the assessee. In this connection, it may be clarified at the outset that against the order of the A.A.C. which is being impugned now, the revenue have already filed an appeal earlier. That appeal by the revenue was that the A.A.C. erred in allowing the assessee's claim for carry forward of loss though the return was not filed within the specified time. The Appellate Tribunal heard both the sides and sustained the order of the A.A.C. in allowing the loss to be carried forward. That was the only point of appeal by the revenue.2. The assessee did not file appeal on his own but after the appeal was filed by the revenue, the assessee as provided under Section 253(4), filed the present cross objections in which the assessee claimed full relief in respect of different expenses, like general charges, telephone etc. Hence, we take up the cross objections of the assessee for disposal. At the stage of hearing of the assessee's cross objections, the lear...