Guwahati Court April 1991 Judgments

Shri Temjenkaba and ors. Vs. Shri Temjenwati and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Srivastava, J. 1. This plaintiff's appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-4-88 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Mokok-chung, Nagaland, whereby the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the residents of village Dibuia, through their Gabhburah Sri Temjenkaba and others had on 18-2-75 filed the suit for declaration of their right to the land in suit described in the schedule and in the map, and for recovery of possession by eviction of the defendants the residents of village Waramong represented by Sri Temjenwati and others, on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land and had title thereto which was declared by the Ao Tribal Council by judgment and order dated 16-1-53, that between 1955 to 1960 the defendant village people had occasionally encroached on the suit land and cultivated the land without authority despite objections raised by the plaintiffs. In view of the disturbed conditions in Nagaland, th...

Mohan Tiwari and ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Court: Guwahati

Manisana, J.1. These three petitions, namely Criminal Revision Nos. 84 of 1987, 85 of 1987 and 113 of 1987, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they are from a common judgment of the Deputy Commissioner Bomdila passed in Criminal Revisions Nos. 1 and 2 of 1986. Sarvashri Mohan Tiwari, C. Lama, K. Hagum, N. Gohain, A. Bhattacharjee and T. Sethen are the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1987, Shri Mohan Tiwari is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1987 and Shri D.L. Nandi is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1987. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charges framed against them Under Sections 409 and 418, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is thus On the basis of a preliminary report submitted by Mobile Squad Arunachal Pradesh Forest Department relating to loss of Government revenue to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/- due to illegal extraction of timber during the period of 1981 to 1984, the police investigated the crime and su...

Mahendra Kumar Lohia and ors. Vs. Sitaram More

Court: Guwahati

S.N. Phukan, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing the criminal proceeding registered as C.R. Case No. 3260 of 1984 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nowgong.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The petitioner No. 1 herein filed a complaint petition on 3-8-1981 under Section 407/34, IPC against the opposite party herein along with three other persons. Finally the above petition came up before the learned court on 21-9-1984 and on that date the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant, namely the petitioner No. 1 herein. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed by the opposite party on 7-11-1984 under Section 500/34, IPC against the petitioner No. 1 and other two persons, viz:-- petitioners No. 2 and 3 before this court. The complaint petition filed in the present proceeding is at Annexure-II and the initial statement is at Annexure-III to this petition. By the impugned or...

Shri Ramo Barman and ors. Vs. Smt. Dagripriya Kachari and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Some important and interesting questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. These are: (i) whether the trial Court having decided an issue as a preliminary issue is entitled to reconsider the same at a later stage in the same suit? (ii) whether it is open to the parties to challenge the decision of the trial Court on a preliminary issue along with other issues in an appeal against the decree of the Court? And (iii) whether an ex parte decree operates as res judicata in any subsequent suit between the parties in respect of the same subject matter? 2. Before proceeding to examine these points, it may be expedient to briefly set out the facts of the case which have given rise to the present appeal. The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Nalbari for declaration of their title, interest and possession over the suit and. Their case was that the suit land along with some other lands belonged to Late Ladhom Boro who sold the suit land to the pro f...

State of Assam Vs. Gobinda Chandra Paul

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with the explanation the appellant is entitled to exclude the time commencing from the date of judgment till signing of the decree prior to his application for a copy thereof in computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal. 2. The appellant State of Assam was a defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi. The suit was for realisation of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- being the value of the goods seized by the Superintendent of Supply, Hailakandi and also compensation for loss and expenditure incurred by him in defending criminal cases instituted against him in respect of the illegal seizure. 3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, who is a grocer, was that he had a shop and godown wherein he stored 12 bags of Atta, 13 bags of Sugar, 1 bag of Moida (flour) and 5 bag...

Nibaran Bora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Manisana, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by one Shri Nibaran Bora in his own name as petitioner, but as a friend of Shri Hiren Kumar Bora and his brother Shri Mintu Bora. It is stated in the petition that Shri Mintu Bora was arrested by the army authority on 18-1-91 in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and that he has not been made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station as provided under Section 5 of the said Act. The affidavit sworn by Shri Hiren Kumar Bora, brother of Shri Mintu Bora, indicates that he authorised Shri Nibaran Bora, a public activist, as his friend to file petition and represent him and his brother Sri Mintu Bora in the case. 2. A question has been raised whether the petitioner Shri Nibaran Bora has right of audience on behalf of Shri Hiren Kumar Bora and/or Shri Mintu Bora. Mr. A.R. Barthakur, learned Advocate General Assam has submitted that he has raised this question as some of the...

Forest Development Corpn. of Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1991)38ITD239(Gau.)

1. (The assessee in this appeal has taken up the following effective grounds: (1) For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Gauhati, failed to consider the question of limitation as per ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee that the assessment based on the return submitted on 11-9-1987 was bad in law. (2) For that, inasmuch as the Income-tax return filed on 11-9-1987 has been accepted as a valid return under under Section 139(1), so the assessment made on 7-9-1988 on the basis of the same is barred by limitation. (3) For that an assessment which is already barred by limitation cannot be set aside with a direction to make a fresh assessment (4) For that as the income-tax return filed on 15-3-1988 is neither a subject matter of assessment nor a ground of appeal the same should not be considered as an issue in this appeal.At the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel did not press ground Nos. 2,4 and 5. At the time of hearing the assessee ha...

Bapuram Dutta and anr. Vs. Smt. Himeswari Bora and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This second appeal is by plaintiffs. 2. The following facts are not disputed. Late Api Dutta died leaving behind four sons, namely-Late Baupti, Late Kon, Late Bhakti and Late Narayan. Late Narayan died leaving behind two sons, namely-- Bapuram and Shishuram and they are the plaintiffs in the present suit. The eldest son Late Baputi died leaving behind one son Jogai, who was the original defendant in this suit and after his death his sons and daughters have been impleaded as defendants. Kon died leaving behind his widow Bhedau and they had no children. The son Bhakti died unmarried. The land of the original owner Late Api Dutta were divided amongst his four sons. The present dispute relates to share of his second son Late Kon and the area of land was 17 Bighas 2 Katha 5 Lechas. After the death of Bhedau, the present plaintiffs claimed 9 Bigha 1 Katha 8 Lechas which is the suit land. The original defendant Late Jogai, son of late Baputi, got 8 Bigha 0 Katha 17 Lech...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premchand JaIn (Legal Representative of ...

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, ('the Tribunal' hereafter), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 were not valid in law ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The years involved are assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The original assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 was made by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 5,301 by order of assessment dated April 10, 1961. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for reassessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act by issue of a notice under Section 148 to the legal representative of the assessee (as the assessee had died i...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gurudayalram Mukhlal

Court: Guwahati

Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax. Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated as follows : The assessee is a registered firm. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66.The previous year is Ram Navami year 2021. In the course of examinationof the accounts of the assessee for the assessment year 1965-66, theIncome-tax Officer found that the assessee had shown in its cash book onOctober 28, 1964, receipt of a sum of Rs. 27,000. The bank account, however, showed the withdrawals as under : DateAmount29-10-64.Rs. 10,0005-11-64.Rs. 10,0005-11-64.Rs. 7,000 3. Again, on September 3...