Guwahati Court July 1990 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.
Raju Das Vs. Sushil Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. By this common Order I propose to dispose of two civil revisions registered as Civil Revisions Nos. 173 and 174 of 1989. 2. On 7-5-88 there was a motor accident at Kamargaon in the District of Golaghat as a result of which both the petitioners sustained severe injuries causing permanent disablement. After the creation of the new revenue District of Golaghat no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was constituted for the said District which was earlier a part of the undivided Sibsagar District with Headquarter at Jorhat. The learned District Judge, Jorhat was empowered to exercise the powers of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals who used to exercise powers for the undivided District of Sibsagar, As petitioners were not sure where to file the claim petitions, this Court was approached and by order dated 27-1-89 passed in Civil Revision No. 40/89 this Court allowed the petitioners to file their petitions before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jorhat. Acc...
Ajit Chandra Bagchi and ors. Vs. Harishpur Tea Company (P) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This first appeal of the defendants is against the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,463,92. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In course of business the plaintiff company used to lend money to the tea estates, namely, Nepaphoo Tea Estate and Rangmala Tea Estate. These two tea estates were owned by a Hindu Undivided Family (H.U.F.) governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Late Suresh Chandra Bagchi, Late Dinesh Chandra Bagchi and defendants 1 to 8, who were heirs of late Bipin Chandra Bagchi, were members of the said H.U.F. The said H.U.F. also held shares of the plaintiff company and another private limited company. As some disputes arose between the members of the family, a partition suit was filed. The said suit was later compromised and a compromise decree...
State of Mizoram and anr. Vs. K. Lalruata and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Y.I. Singh, J.1. Right in the beginning, the learned Advocate-General has submitted that he is not in a position to represent the Government of Mizoram as the respondents were his clients before he was appointed as the Advocate-General of the State of Mizoram. The respondents are also absent without assigning any reason whatsoever. However, as the revision petition cannot be dismissed for default of the parties, I have decided to dispose of the matter on merit.2. This petition under Section 397 has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 30-4-87 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mizoram at Silchar in Special Case No. 1 of 1982.3. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Shri H.K. Chakravarty, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 23-12-81 that during the year 1978 while Shri K. Lalruata was functioning as Office Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent, Railway Out Agency, under the Directorate of Supply and Transport, Government of Mi...
Hari Sadhan Deb Vs. Dulal Deb
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Srivastava, J.1. This petition by the complainant is directed against the order dated 2-4-82 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala whereby the accused opposite-party was discharged.2. The petitioner had filed complaint that on 21-2-81 at about 10-10 p.m. the complainant and 4 others had been arrested, on a false case registered at West Agartala P.S. by the opposite party who was then A.S.I, at the said police station. The opposite party appeared before the learned Magistrate. On 2-4-1982 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. the petitioner and also learned counsel for the accused who was also present and after consideration of the materials before him came to the conclusion that the accused should be discharged. Accordingly, the order impugned in this petition was made.3. Aggrieved, the complainant has come to this court and Shri B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the complaint...
Bijoy Krishna Dey and ors. Vs. Prabhu Dayal Chohan and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
R.K. Manisana Singh, J.1. This appeal arises from the award dated 22.12.1981 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tezpur, in Claim Case No. 28 of 1972.2. Facts: On account of the negligence of the driver of bus No. ASZ 2797 belonging to Ramesh Chandra Dey (since deceased), the bus collided with a scooter bearing No. ASZ 4710 on 14.2.1971. The scooterist Prabhu Dayal Chohan suffered head injury and mandibular fracture. Prabhu Dayal (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') claimed Rs. 2,35,600/- as compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tezpur. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,89,400/- as compensation. Hence this appeal.3. At the time of incident, the claimant was aged 23 and was serving under Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta as an Inspector earning Rs. 350/- per month. His retiring age was 58. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,89,400/- under four heads of damage, namely, Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment; Rs. 50,000/-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JaIn Hardware Stores
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. This reference is made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, North Eastern Region. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of four partners, and one among the four is Dindayal Jain. The firm paid to Dindayal Jain Rs. 2,340 in the relevant assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 2,864 in the assessment year 1979-80, Rs. 4,032 in the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 4,924 in the assessment year 1981-82. These four amounts were the interest amounts paid on investments. The firm sought deduction of the four amounts as they were paid to the Hindu undivided family of which Dindayal Jain is the karta. These four amounts were not paid to a partner of the firm. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the deductions. Thereafter, the following question is referred to be answered by this court for the four assessment years : 'Whether, on the facts and in the...
Sudhangshu Mohan Deb Vs. Smt. Nirode Sundari Deb Dhupi and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Srivastava, J. 1. This is plaintiff's revision against the judgment and order dt. 30-6-1983 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, whereby the plaintiff's appeal against the order dt. 30-5-1982 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, West Tripura dt. 5-3-90 refusing the prayer for temporary injunction, was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the relevant material facts are that the petitioner had filed suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on the land in suit and for injunction, on the allegations, that originally one Sanatan Dhupi had been in possession of the land in suit which was 'acquired' by the Government for 'public purpose'. After utilisation of the land for aforesaid public purpose, the land in excess of requirement by the Government with Dhirendrajit Singha Roy in Takshishi rights (intermidiary rights). One relative of Sanatan Dhupi had filed objection. The Government made enquiry and the objection was rejected. The khatian was posted in ...
Sri Lakshiram Deb Barma Vs. Sri Prantosh Dhar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
J.M. Srivastava, J. 1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1976 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-1972 passed by the learned Munsiff, Khowai, West Tripura was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit land as raiyat and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering the land in suit, on the allegations that the plaintiff's father had taken korta settlement of the land about forty years back from the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 late Abani Dhar who was the tenant of the land and had paid rent regularly. After the death of Abani Dhar, the plaintiff continued to pay rent to the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff was recorded as korfa (under raiyat) under the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the raiyats, who had not applied for reservation of the 'land' for their personal ...
S. Ajit Singh Rais Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
A. Raghuvir, C.J.1. The two references Nos. 21 of 1981 and 9 of 1990 relate to S. Ajit Singh Rais (the assessee) under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first reference is made at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal. That reference relates to the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The second reference was made by an order of this court at the instance of the assessee. The second reference relates to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.2. The eight questions referred in the former reference are: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the status of the assessee was that of 'Individual' and not 'Hindu undivided family' (2) Whether the Tribunal has considered all relevant materials arid has not based its findings on irrelevant materials while determining the status of the assessee (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct and had any mat...
Shri Amrit Lal Basumatari, Recrimination Vs. Shri Abdul Muhib Mazumdar ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Manisana, J. 1. In election petition No. 23 of 1989, the election petitioner has claimed two reliefs, one under Section 100 for declaration that the election of the respondent-2 Sri Basumatary, the returned candidate, is void, and other under Section 101(1) for declaring respondent-1 Hiteswar Saikia to have been duly elected. The respondent-2 filed a recrimination petition No. 18 of 1989 under Section 97(1) calling in question the election of the respondent-1 Hiteswar Saikia, is, the respondent-1 Hiteswar Saikia in whose favour a declaration is claimed by the election petitioner cannot be said to have been validly elected. 2. The question for determination is whether the recrimination petition is to be heard together along with, the election petition or separately as an independent petition. 3. Mr. B. N. Sen, the learned counsel for the election petitioner, has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case the present recrimination petition is to be tried together along ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›