Guwahati Court August 1997 Judgments

Laxmanlal Jee Mandir Vs. Laxmiram Agarwalla and anr.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J.1. Civil Revision No. 371 of 1993 has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 20-8-93 passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 4/92 (T.S. 3/85 (old). By the impugned order the learned Munsiff allowed the prayer of Opposite Party No. 2 to be added as Pro forma-Defendant in that suit.2. Civil Revision No. 372/93 in T. S. No. 7/92 (T.S. 4/85 old) has been filed by the plaintiff and there also by the order of the same date the Opposite Party No. 2 was added as proforma defendant in the suit, that is, (In T.S. No. 7/92 and T.S. No. 4/85 old).3. Civil Revision No. 373/93 (In T.S. No. 24/ 92 (T.S. 3/85 old) also has been filed against the order of the same date.4. Civil Revision No. 374 of 1993 is also filed against the orderof the same date in Title Suit No; 23/92 (T.S. No. 2/85 old).5. The Civil Revision No. 44 of 1994 has been filed by Lakhanlalji Mandir Suraksha Samitee against the order dated 24-1-94 passed by the Munsiff No. 1 at Tinsukia in...

Sadananda Keot and ors. Vs. Jona Ram Saikia and ors.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J.1. This is the second round of litigation. This litigation is continuing for a period of more than 31 years. It started in the year 1966 and today we are in the fag end of 1997. The decree obtained in the year 1972 has been stalled by resorting to this second round of litigation. Earlier two suits were filed being TS 44 and 45 of 1966 and that was filed by Ghinaram and Jomaram -- defendants in the present suit and that was filed against the following persons : (i) Bhogram, (ii) Ratneswar, (iii) Gopal, (iv)Joyram, (v) Bipin, (vi) Hemchandra, (vii)Kinaram. 2. These defendants are the sons and grandsons of one Dehiram. Those two suit being 44 and 45 of 1966 was filed by Ghinaram and Jamaram on the ground that originally the land belonged to Muhiram and Muhiram had no issue and as such Ghinaram and Jamaram being the brothers of Muhiram inherited that land and they were in occupation of that land and these defendants dispossessed them from the land and as such, the suits wer...

income Tax Officer Vs. Chunilal Jain

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the relevant assessment year involved is 1990-91. The appeal was marked as time barred by one day for which the AO has submitted condonation petition explaining the reason as to why the appeal could not be filed within the due date.2. Having heard the rival parties and considering the petition filed by the AO, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.3. The first ground of appeal is against relief allowed by the first appellate authority amounting to Rs. 11,894 on account of electric charges and salary to chowkider and sweeper while computing income from house property.4. The assessee is an individual and the assessment order was passed under s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had income from house property, etc. While computing income from house property the assessee claimed expenses such as municipal tax, electric charges, salary to chowkidar and sweeper as well as miscellaneous expenses. The AO computed the income from house proper...

income Tax Officer Vs. Kailash Ch. Agarwalla

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The appeal was marked as time-barred by 93 days for which the AO has submitted a petition for condonation of the appeal. The only reason for the delay was due to non-receipt of certified copy of the appellate order appealed against till the date of filing the appeal.Shri D. K. Biswas, the learned Departmental Representative, has submitted that the delay may be condoned in view of the explanation filed by the AO.2. Shri Sampat K. Jain, the learned counsel of the assessee opposed the condonation petition. It is stated that the long delay was not at all satisfactorily explained. Non-receipt of certified copy of the appellate order appealed against cannot be accepted as reasonable cause for the delay. It is submitted that the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, in ITA No. 643 (Gau) and 644 (Gau) of 1991 dt. 12th December, 1996 in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Kamal & Associates considered similar petition and...

income Tax Officer Vs. Kailash Ch. AgarwallA.

Court: Guwahati

N. PACHUAU, A.M. :This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The appeal was marked as time-barred by 93 days for which the AO has submitted a petition for condonation of the appeal. The only reason for the delay was due to non-receipt of certified copy of the appellate order appealed against till the date of filing the appeal. Shri D. K. Biswas, the learned Departmental Representative, has submitted that the delay may be condoned in view of the explanation filed by the AO.2. Shri Sampat K. Jain, the learned counsel of the assessee opposed the condonation petition. It is stated that the long delay was not at all satisfactorily explained. Non-receipt of certified copy of the appellate order appealed against cannot be accepted as reasonable cause for the delay. It is submitted that the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, in ITA No. 643 (Gau) and 644 (Gau) of 1991 dt. 12th December, 1996 in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Kamal & Associates considered simi...

Bikul Das and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury, J.1. These writ petitions involved the common question of fact as well as common question of law and, therefore, these petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. The subject-matter involved here is related to the levy and collection of tax at source under Section 206 of the Income-tax Act in respect of profits and gains of trading in alcoholic liquor. The facts and the legal issues set forth in Civil Rule No. 1423 of 1995 (Hemanta Baruah v. State of Assam) would only be taken up for consideration in adjudicating the issues involved in these cases.3. The petitioners at all relevant times are/were lessees of country spirit shops under the Assam Excise Act, 1910, and the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. The trade of country spirit is regulated by the Assam Excise Act, 1910, and the Rules framed thereunder.4. The country spirit (liquor) is first imported in the State as envisaged in rule 77 to rule 80 of the Assam Excise Rules and thereafter those are brought to the excise w...

Bikul Das and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury, J.These writ petitions involved the common question of fact as well as common question of law and, therefore, these petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. The subject-matter involved here is related to the levy and collection of tax at source under section 206 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in respect of profits and gains of trading in alcoholic liquor. The facts and the legal issues set forth in Civil Rule No. 1423 of 1995 (Hemanta Baruah v. State of Assam) would only be taken up for consideration in adjudicating the issues involved in these cases.3. The petitioners at all relevant times are/were lessees of country spirit shops under the Assam Excise Act, 1910, and the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. The trade of country spirit is regulated by the Assam Excise Act, 1910, and the Rules framed thereunder.4. The country spirit (liquor) is first imported in the State as envisaged in rule 77 to rule 80 of the Assam Excise Rules and thereaft...

Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation Vs. State of Manipur and ...

Court: Guwahati

W.A. Shishak, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation (CLAHRO), Manipur, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980, represented by its General Secretary who is a member of the High Court Bar Association, as a public interest social action on behalf of Ningthoujam Rashi Devi, wife of late Ningthoujam Angou Singh and three minor children as dependants of N. Angou Singh who died while in custody of police.2. Facts leading to the present case may be stated briefly. On 28.1.1989 at about 6 a.m. a group of armed police men of Chandel Police Station numbering about 6 (six) led by one Achou Singh, ASI, attached to Chandel Police Station took him away from his house in a police jeep saying that he was required in connection with some case but no particulars were disclosed to the members of his family. Said N. Angou Singh was handcuffed by the respondent No. 7, when he was taken away. It may be stated that said N. Angou Singh ...

Bikul Das and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Gau)227

D.N. Chowdhury, J.These writ petitions involved the common question of fact as well as common question of law and, therefore, these petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. The subject-matter involved here is related to the levy and collection of tax at source under section 206 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in respect of profits and gains of trading in alcoholic liquor. The facts and the legal issues set forth in Civil Rule No. 1423 of 1995 (Hemanta Baruah v. State of Assam) would only be taken up for consideration in adjudicating the issues involved in these cases.3. The petitioners at all relevant times are/were lessees of country spirit shops under the Assam Excise Act, 1910, and the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. The trade of country spirit is regulated by the Assam Excise Act, 1910, and the Rules framed thereunder.4. The country spirit (liquor) is first imported in the State as envisaged in rule 77 to rule 80 of the Assam Excise Rules and thereafte...