Guwahati Court June 1998 Judgments

Dhananjoy Bhowmik Vs. State of Tripura

Court: Guwahati

H.K. Sema, J.1. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the accused Amulya Bhowmik who has been arrested on 16-3-98 in connection with Bishlgarh P. SECTIONC ase No. 101 of 1997 under Section 302, IPC. Since the arrest on 16-3-98 the accused has been incarcerated for about 103 nays by now. His bail application have been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala on 16-6-98 on the ground that mandatory period 180 days has not been lapsed in view of Criminal Procedure Code stands a mended by Tripura Amendment Act of 1998.2. It is contended by Mr. B.B. Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner that Tripura Amendment Act, 1997 is not applicable to the case of general nature. According to the learned Counsel, reading of aims and objects of that amended Act it extends only to the extremists related offence and as far as offence of the general nature is concerned, the Central Act would be applicable.3....

Baijnath Biswanath and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury J. 1.This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against and arising out of a common order dated December 17, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, respondent No. 3, under Section 20(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956, for the assessment periods ending September 30, 1984, March 31, 1985, September 30, 1985 and March 31, 1986 as well as the consequential orders passed thereunder.2. The petitioner/firm is a registered dealer under Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Prior to enactment of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, petitioner No. 1 was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The petitioner at the relevant time was a registered dealer who used to deal in potatoes and onions and also submitted its returns on turnovers under the provisions of the Act, 1956 for the periods ending September 30, 1984, March 31, 1985, September 30, 1985 and March ...

Lalit Mohan Ghose and ors. Vs. State of Triupura

Court: Guwahati

P.C. Phukan, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 8-12-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala convicting the accused appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentencing them there under to imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 21(W.T./A) of 1983.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19-8-1983 in the morning at Madhya Pratapgarh under East Agartala under West Tripura Police Station Pinu alias Uttam Chakraborty (since deceased) was returning home on a cycle from the side of Goal Bazar along Madhya Pratapgarh road. When he reached the front of the roadside house of Lalit Mohan Ghose at about 11 a.m., Lalit and his three sons Ranjan, Sankar and Sajal alias Nanu Ghose armed with Daos and Ballam attacked him. He fell down from the bicycle and started running towards the south. Chased by Lalit and his sons, he fell down on the paddy field of Lalit's brother Dhiro Ghose where they struck him with Daos and Ballam...

Smt. Bina Rani Dey and ors. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Patnaik, J. 1.This is an appeal under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the order dated 14-6-93 of the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Suit No. 65 (Arb) 83 setting aside the Award made by the Arbitrators.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellants Nos. 2 to 10 are the sons and appellants Nos. 11 to 13 are the daughters of late Gopal Chandra Dey. On the land of late Gopal Chandra Dey, respondents-1, 2 and 3 intended to draw a 66 KV line for power transmission. Late Gopal Chandra Dey objected to the drawal of said line on his land on which he was carrying on the business of manufacturing bricks in a brick kiln. When the respondents did not pay any heed to the said objection of late Gopal Chandra Dey, he instituted Title Suit No. 223/74 in the Court of learned Sadar Munsiff, Agartala and obtained an order of temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from entering into ...

Sang Dakpu Alias Shri Sangra Vs. Smt. Netan Wangmu and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D. Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the judgment and order dated 22-11-95 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tawang in Civil Case No. T J/90/95 has been challenged.2. We have heard Shri G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri O.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the opposite party.3. At the very outset it is considered necessary to spell out the powers of this Court under Section 50 of the Regulation, 1945. Here we may refer to an earlier decision of this Court in Sang Phuntso, Gaon Bura of Jang Village v. Darjee Mindu in (1983) 1 GLR (NOC) 36, the learned single Judge while interpreting the Rules 37, 38 of the Regulation 1945 observed hat the village authorities have certain limited jurisdiction to try some specific cases and no village authority has been conferred powers to decide right, title and interest of immova...

Bongaigaon Refinery and Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1999)68ITD531(Gau.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company against the order of CIT, N.E. Region, Shillong, dt. 19th March, 1997, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant company is a public sector undertaking engaged in refinery, petro-chemicals and polyster staple fibre. These different and separate units were set up and commissioned in the financial years 1979-80, 1985-86 and 1988-89, respectively. All these units produce different types of articles which are distinctly and separately identifiable. All these three separate units are situated in Dhaligaon, Bongaigaon District, Assam. The deduction under ss. 80-I and 80HH for petro-chemical unit prior to asst. yr. 1992-93, was not claimed as its net taxable income was nil and in view of provisions contained in s. 80A(2) of IT Act. For the asst. yr. 1992-93, the assessee-company filed its original return on 29th December, 1992, claiming deduction under s. 80HH amounting to Rs. 12,71,07...

Chand Mall Pincha and ors. Vs. Hathimal Pincha and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. The appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act is arising out of and directed against an order passed by the Company Law Board ('the CLB in short'), Principal Bench, New Delhi, in C. P. No. 17 of 1996, dated June 11, 1998. The above order in fact is an upshot of its earlier judgment and order dated January 10, 1997, in a proceeding under Chapter Vl.of the Act before the Company Law Board, questioning among others the decision to raise the authorised and paid-up capital, the, issue and allotment of 4,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each to the sixth respondent of C. P. No. 17 of 1996 as well as the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the director. The Company Law Board did not accept the plea of oppression due to non-appointment of N. K. Pinch (petitioner there) as director, the appointment of Rajib Pincha (respondent No. 4) as the new director. The Company Law Board however on assessment of the fact situation, set aside 'the allotment of 4,000 shares to the sixt...

Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J.1. In these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional vires of Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts in Civil Rule No. 2072 of 1993 are that petitioner No. 1 is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and petitioner No 2 is the director and shareholder of petitioner No. 1 company. For the previous period July 1, 1987 to March 31, 1989, petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee'), filed a return on December 27, 1989, showing a total loss of Rs. 1,94,13,440 which included the loss of current year of Rs. 79,36,126 and unabsorbed loss of the previous year of Rs. 1,14,77,316. The Deputy - Commissioner of Income-tax, Assessment, Special Range-I, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer'), thereafter sent an intimation dated February 14, 1990, acceptin...

Ashit Roy Choudhury Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarmah, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge on 30.4.1997 in M.A. (F) No. 14 of 1995 whereby the learned Judge held that the amount of penalty under the Workmen's Compensation Act shall be the liability of the employer. It was further stated that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the penalty, that is, 50 per cent of the amount.2. A claim petition was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation at North Tripura, Kailasahar. That was registered as Case No. TS (W/C) No. 1 of 1993. In order to decide the present controversy in this appeal it is necessary to refer to paras 8 and 9 of the claim petition. They are quoted below:(8) That the petitioner approached the O.P. No. 1 for the compensation who had already been informed of the accident and the resultant death, but he refused to pay it on the ground that he held a policy of insurance valid at the time of the accident and as such any amount of compensation, if pay...

S. Gajinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a prayer to call for a statement of the case on some questions of law which arise out of the order dated October 27, 1997, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in I. T. A. No. 227 (Gauhati) of 1990. 2. The facts briefly are that for the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner filed his return and was assessed to tax by an assessment order. In course of the said assessment, the petitioner claimed a depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. on the trucks owned by him. The petitioner's case was that since the trucks had been used by the petitioner in transportation business, he was entitled to 40 per cent. depreciation on the trucks as per the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes as well as the Income-tax Rules. But the said case of the petitioner was turned down by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and instead, depreciation at 30 per cent. was allowed on the t...