Guwahati Court March 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Pyngrope
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in entertaining an appeal by the assessee against an assessment order made under Section 143(1) accepting the return of income submitted by the assessee?' 2. The assessee is an employee of the Meghalaya Government. He submitted under Section 139 of the Act his return of income on March 16, 1979, for the assessment year 1978-79, the accounting period being 1977-78. The Income-tax Officer accepted the return as correct and complete and assessed the total income of the assessee and determined the tax payable by him under Section 143(1) of the Act The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner claiming that hi...
Tag this Judgment!Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation Vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. and a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-29-1992
S.K. Homchaudhuri, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the ex parte order dated 24-1 -92 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Shillong in Misc. Arbitration Case No. l(H)/92 in exercise of power under section 41 of the Arbitration Act, restraining the petitioner and the State Bank of Patiala, the opposite party No. 2 from taking any step of any kind to encash the 11 (eleven) Bank Guarantees for a sum of Rs. 25,60,000 / - which was executed by the opposite party No. 2 in favour of the petitioner.2. The impugned order has been challenged in the following grounds :-- ' (i) the learned Asstt. District Judge after disposing of the proceeding under section 20 of the Arbitration Act by order dated 27-11-89 having become functus officio, has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act without any proceeding pending before it;(ii) the prayer made in the application by the opposite party No. l, M/s. S. A. ...
Tag this Judgment!United Bank of India Vs. Jorhat Fuel Briquetting Industry and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Manisana, J. 1. This is an appeal from the preliminary decree dated 27-5-86 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 31 of 1981. The plaintiff-Bank instituted the suit for recovery of Rupees 86,996.83 by sale of mortgaged properties. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The defendant Mayeeduz Zaman Ahmed took a loan of Rs. 31,000/- from the plaintiff-Bank. The payment of the loan was secured by a demand promissory note and a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds. The defendant failed to pay the amount due and, therefore, the plaintiff-Bank ascertained a sum of Rupees 59,669.61 as on 28-3-78 and initiated a proceeding for recovery of the same before the Bakijai Officer against the defendant under the Assam Loan Recovery Act, 1976. The Bakijai Officer returned the certificate on the ground that the Bakijai Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Thereafter, the plaintiff-Bank instituted the suit claiming Rs. 86,996.83 which includes interest on R...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Paothing Tangkhul Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
W.A. Shishak, J. 1. In this writ application filed on 16-3-1992, it is stated that the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 of National Security Act by an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Khape Koza, respondent No. 2. The petitioner, according to the certificate issued by Jailor, Dimapur Sub-Jail, has been in custody under the aforesaid Section of law with effect from 24-12-1991.2. It appears the petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with some other criminal cases but in those cases he was granted bail. It is the specific submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now detained in sub-jail, under the aforesaid Section 3 of NSA as stated above. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner at the bar today that as per information received from the Jailor the petitioner has been kept under detention on the basis of custody warrant only And in that custody warrant the only section mentioned is Section 3 of NSA. I...
Tag this Judgment!Warren Tea Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Assam and Others.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
R. K. MANISANA J. - In this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, has challenged an order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer made on June 10, 1986, refusing to change the "previous agricultural year".Section 2(d) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, runs as follows :"previous agricultural year" means the twelve months ending the 31st day of March preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made, or, if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a date within the said twelve months in respect of a year ending on any date other than the said 31st day of March, or if the accounts of an assessee are made up to a date ending on the last day of a Bengali or Ramnavami year beyond the said 31st day of March then at the option of the assessee the year ending on the day to which his accounts have so been made up;Provided that, if this opt...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand Joshi Vs. Satya Narayan Bazaz
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-84 passed by the Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 3/84 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 35/80 by the Munsiff, Nalbari. 2. The opposite party brought a suit (TS No. 35/80) in the Court of the Munsiff, Nalbari, praying for a decree for khas possession of the suit house and for recovery of Rs. 8,100/- on account of compensation and mense profit for wrongful use and occupation etc. The petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit. The learned trial court framed five issues and after examining the witnesses by his judgment dated 19-12-83 decreed the suit; answering all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The petitioners preferred an appeal (T.A. No. 3/84) before the Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Kamrup. The appeal was also dismissed with costs giving two months time to defendants/pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›