Guwahati Court March 1993 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meghalaya Plywood Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government was not deductible from the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of calculating depreciation thereon ?'2. The respondent is a public limited company with its registered office at Meghalaya. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The respondent-assessee has plant and machinery, a part of which was purchased in the previous year relevant to the assessment year and the remaining part was purchased during prior years. It appears that, under the Central Subsidy Scheme, 1971, the respondent received a sum of Rs. 11,72,000 as Central subsidy against the investment of about Rs. 62,00,000 for purchase o...
The Registrar, Gauhati High Court Vs. Shri S.R. Barman
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.1. A local vernacular daily namely 'Daily Desher Katha' in its issue dated 28-5-88, published a news item under the following caption -'Opposition Leaders' allegation to the Chief Justice of Supreme Court - The Home Minister has compelled to change the Court's order by way of exercising unlawful interference to the works of Judiciary.'In the said news item amongst other it was published -'It is learnt from reliable source that the State Home Minister sent an urgent message to the S.D.J.M. Sonamura on 19th May through the o/c of Sonamura Police Station so that he meets the Home Minister on that day. The reaosns are best known to him. The Home Minister was offended and he sent the District Judge Shri R. B. Singha to Sonamura on 20th May in the morning by a Police vehicle T.R.P. 207. As a result the S.D.J.M. of Sonamura was compelled to come at Agartala on that very day with the District Judge Shri Singha along with all concerning papers in connection with the case a...
Sashidhara Kurup Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
H.K. Sema, J.1. This revision is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14-7-1988 passed by the 2nd respondent (Commandant) convicting the revisionist to undergo a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in Civil Jail under Section 7(f) of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941.2. I have heard Mr. R.S. Bedi, learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. S.N. Chetia, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The revisionist at the relevant time was Havildar in the establishment of Assam Rifles and was posted at Khonuma out post. On 9th July, 1988 the revisionist was called to the Battalion Headquarters at Kohima, on the arrival he was taken into custody. On 11th July, 1988 while the revisionist was in custody, he was served with the summon asking him to appear before the 2nd respondent on 12th July, 1988 to answer charges Under Section 7(f) of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 (hereinafter the Act) for committing acts prejudicial to good order 'and discipline. In the sa...
Ananda Bezbaruah Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
M. Sharma, J.1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the accused petitioner for quashing the impugned order of framing charge and also the proceeding in the Special Case No. 28(c)/90 under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati.2. Petitioner was the Deputy General Manager and was officiating in the post of Genera] Manager (Administration), till April, 1988. On 21-3-88 one Shri S. K. Saikia, Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Shillong lodged an FIR on informations, alleging inter alia that the petitioner had amassed huge wealth by dishonest and corrupt means during his service career which was grossly disproportionate to the known source of income of the petitioner. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner had constructed a two storied palatial building in the name of his wife Mrs. Era Bezbaruah and found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/...
Jitmal Maheswari and anr. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in Complaint Case No. 1459C/78 convicted the three accused, namely, M/s. Mahabir Store, its employee and its proprietor respectively, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) and duly sentenced them. In appeal, Cri. Appeal No. 24(K-1)/84, Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati set aside the conviction and sentence entered against first accused, but dismissed the appeal in regard to second and third accused. Hence this revision petition by accused 2 and 3.2. P.W. 1, Food Inspector, Guwahati visited the premises of M/s. Mahabir Stores on 6-4-1978,-found mustard oil exhibited for sale and after conforming to requirements of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, purchased 375 ml. of the oil and dealt with the same as required by the Act and the Rules. Part of the sample was duly sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts thereof were sent...
Rajib Barooah and anr. Vs. Hemendra Prasad Barooah and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23-11-92 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat, in Misc (J) Case No. 132 of 1992, arising out of Title Suit No. 12/92, rejecting the petition under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) for production of seven persons mentioned in the petition, for cross-examination. ' 2. The facts for the purpose of the casemay be briefly stated as follows: The petitioners are the grandsons of late. Raibahadur Shiva Prasad Barooah and late Kamal Kumari Barooah and sons of late Romendra Prasad Barooah. Late Kamal Kumari Barooah during her lifetime created a Trust by a registered deed of trust at Jorhat, known as 'Kamal Kumari Barooah Trust'. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) arc the Trustees of the said Trust. They are also the Directors of the fifth opposite party -- Kuhum Tea Company Pvt. Limited. The petitioners are two of nine bene...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›