Guwahati Court September 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.N. Sarma
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Gyani, J. - It was in compliance of the direction of this Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as made in Civil Rule No. 25(M) of 1993 that the following question based on a statement of facts was drawn by the department:'Whether in view of wording of rule 8(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in coming to the finding that the claim of the assessee was rightly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal on the facts of the case ?'2. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee at the very outset submitted that notwithstanding the fact that this statement of case has been sought by the High Court and the above question referred for its opinion, the Court is not bound to answer the question. Before we deal with this contention, it would be pertinent to note the basic facts. The assessee has three tea garden. In the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer held that the expenditure incurred on en-block re-plantation was cap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.N. Sarma and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
V.D. Gyani, J.1. It was in compliance with the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as made in Civil Rule No. 25(M) of 1993, that the following questions based on statements of facts were drawn by the Department :'Whether, in view of the wording of rule 8(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in coming to the finding that the claim of the assessee was rightly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the facts of the case ?'2. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that notwithstanding the fact that this statement of case has been sought by the High Court and the above question referred for its opinion, the court is not bound to answer the question. Before we deal with this contention, it would be pertinent to note the basic facts. The assessee had three tea gardens. In the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer held that the expenditure incurred on en bloc replantation was c...
Tag this Judgment!Ashuli Kashipri and anr. Vs. Manipur Cement Limited and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Surjamani, J.1. Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, it appears to me that the Writ petitioners namely Shri Ashuli Kashipri and Shri Seram Dineshwar Singh, made a prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to regularise their services, as Mines Manager in case of Petitioner No. 1 and Mining Mate in case of Petitioner No. 2 in The Manipur Cements Limited (a Government of Manipur Undertaking & Government Company), Hundung Cement Factory, Hundung, District PS Huhrul, Manipur, w.e.f. the dates on which each of them had successfully completed the required course of their training, i.e. November 11, 1995 in the case of the Petitioner No. 1 and August 11, 1995 in the case of the Petitioner No. 2. According to the writ petitioners, Petitioner No. 1 is a member of Scheduled Tribe of Manipur, and the Petitioner No.2 is a member of Meitei OBC of Manipur. Petitioner No. 1 is a holder of Degree of E.E.(mining) of a recognised university/institute, certificate of com...
Tag this Judgment!Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
N. Surjamani, J.1. Upon hearing the learned Counsel on both sides it appears to me that the petitioner, namely Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. made a prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to refund to the writ petitioner-Company forthwith the sum of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum thereon so far deposited by the writ petitioner with the respondent on 12.12.86, and for a direction to the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the impugned Show Cause Notice dt. 8.12.86 bearing No. V- 44/Adj/86 issued by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Shillong--the 2nd respondent herein, and for passing further or other order or orders which this Court deems it proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. According to the writ petitioner it is a Registered Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956) having its registered office at Bawri Mansions, Dhankheti, Shillong, Meghalaya; and factory at Byrnihat, ...
Tag this Judgment!Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
N. Surjamani, J.1. Upon hearing the learned Counsel on both sides it appears to me that the petitioner, namely Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. made a prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to refund to the writ petitioner-Company forthwith the sum of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum thereon so far deposited by the writ petitioner with the respondent on 12.12.86, and for a direction to the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the impugned Show Cause Notice dt. 8.12.86 bearing No. V- 44/Adj/86 issued by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Shillong--the 2nd respondent herein, and for passing further or other order or orders which this Court deems it proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. According to the writ petitioner it is a Registered Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956) having its registered office at Bawri Mansions, Dhankheti, Shillong, Meghalaya; and factory at Byrnihat, w...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Debbarma and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
N.G. Das, J.1. This application under proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal F.A. No. 78 of 1997 against the judgment and award that was passed on 10.7.1996 in Title Suit (MAC) No. 164 of 1995.2. I have heard Mr. S.M. Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Deb Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.3. There is no controversy over the fact that the judgment and award which has been impugned in the memo of appeal was passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 10.7.1996. The certified copy of the judgment/award was furnished to the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., i.e., the present petitioner on 15.7.1996. In course of the submission o...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mohan Banik Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notices dated October 27, 1992, and November 13, 1992, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-II, Silchar, under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), respectively, of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner, Sri Krishna Mohan Banik, is a partner of Jagannath Bhandar which is a partnership firm registered under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner's firm'). For the assessment year 1990-91, the petitioner's firm filed its income-tax return on March 31, 1992, showing a total income of Rs. 1,16,770 and tax liability of Rs. 16,465 which had been paid as advance tax and self-assessment tax. The Assessing Officer sent an intimation dated August 20, 1992, to the petitioner under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, demanding a further amount of Rs. 1,361 after computing the tax...
Tag this Judgment!Cheema Enterprises Vs. Mayur Enterprises
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
J.N. Sarma, J.1. This revision application has been filed against an order dated 3-1-97 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon Assam in Money Suit No. 33/94.2. A suit was filed for realisation of Rupees 6,73,251/- against the defendant along with other reliefs. It may be stated herein that necessity to file the suit arose because of the supply of a machine to the plaintiff by the defendant and that order of acceptance was signed at Guwahati. It was signed on behalf of the defendant by its authorised signatory and on behalf of the plaintiff it was signed by somebody else stating that the order is confirmed. There is a printed Clause at the back of this form and Clause 11 states inter alia as follows:'All disputes are subject to Kashipur Jurisdiction.'3. It was on the basis of this Clause that the defendant when got the summons of the suit and filed an objection stating therein that the Court at Nagaon has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ralkaptluanga G. and ors. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner Nos. 1-9 are holding the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officers (hereinafter ASCO) and petitioner Nos. 10-12 are also holding the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Engineer (hereinafter ASCE) under the Soil and Water Conservation Department, Government of Mizoram and both these posts of ASCO and ASCE carry the same scale of pay of Rs. 2375-3500/-. The grievance of the petitioners here is that they have been unlawfully discriminated by denying them equal pay as enjoyed by theirequals. 2. All the petitioners joined their services either as ASCO or as ASCE during the period from 1988 to 1994 their respective dates of appointment are shown in the notification dated January 24, 1986 (Annexure-I) and I (A). Prior to revision of Pay Rules, 1986 the scale of payof the ASCO and ASCE was Rs. 650-1200/-andby the said Revision of Pay Rules, 1986 the payof the said post has been revised to Rs. 2000-3500/- After Revision of Pay Rules, 1986which came into ...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeb Nath Vs. Smt. Diptikona Nath
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
J.N. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar at Silchar dated 13-11 -95 passed in Title Suit No. 86 of 1992. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge held that this suit is barred by the principle of res judicata and accordingly dismissed the suit holding to be barred under Section 11 of C.P.C. Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows : '21. Application of Act 5 of 1908.-- Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.'2. The principle of res judicata may apply in certain cases also in a matter under Hindu Marriage Act. There is an authority for this proposition of law in AIR 1981 SC 1143, Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry where the Supreme Court pointed out as follow...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »