Guwahati Court January 2000 Judgments

Subhash Mohan Dev Vs. Santosh Mohan Dev and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. This appeal is directed against the two orders passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the CLB) in Company Petition No. 52/98 u/s 397/398 of the Companies Act which has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. Crozier's Agency Private Limited, pro forma respondent No.6 is a Company belonging to one family consisting of three brothers each with sharholding in the proportion of one third. Two of the brothers, who are respondents in this proceeding, brought an action before the CLB alleging, inter alia, that the shareholding position has altered by issue of additional shares in favour of the appellant group and that one of the respondents was removed from the office of the Director. Considering all the aspect of the matter the CLB suggested the parties for resolving the dispute amicably. The CLB accordingly passed an order on 16.12.1998 suggesting for restoration of parity in the shareholding and ordering one of the petitioners to continue in the Board of Directo...

R.K. Randhoni Devi Vs. State of Manipur and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. The controversy raised in this petition revolves round the appointment to the post of Special Officer, and to be precise the appointment and regularisation of service of the respondent No. 3 to the said post in the Tribal Development Department under the Govt. of Manipur which has occasioned in the following circumstances. 2. Recruitment to the post of Special Officer in the Tribal Welfare Department under the State of Manipur is regulated by a set of Rules known as Manipur (Special Officer/Tribal Welfare) Recruitment Rules, 1982. The Rules apply to the posts specified in column-1 of Manipur Public Service Commission Form No.8 of the Rules. The post of Special Officer is a Class-I Gazetted post. The post was shown as a selection post. The Regulation prescribed the Masters Degree of a recognised university as an essential qualification. The method of recruitment is provided in column-10 and 11 of the Rules which reads as follows:-'' 10. Method of rectt. whether by direct rectt. or ...

R.K. Randhoni Devi Vs. State of Manipur and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. The controversy raised in this petition revolves round the appointment to the post of Special Officer, and to be precise the appointment and regularisation of service of the respondent No. 3 to the said post in the Tribal Development Department under the Govt. of Manipur which has occasioned in the following circumstances.2. Recruitment to the post of Special Officer in the Tribal Welfare Department under the State of Manipur is regulated by a set of Rules known as Manipur (Special Officer/Tribal Welfare) Recruitment Rules, 1982. The Rules apply to the posts specified in column-1 of Manipur Public Service Commission Form No.8 of the Rules. The post of Special Officer is a Class-I Gazetted post. The post was shown as a selection post. The Regulation prescribed the Masters Degree of a recognised university as an essential qualification. The method of recruitment is provided in column-10 and 11 of the Rules which reads as follows:-'' 10. Method of rectt. whether by direct rectt. or by ...

Subhash Mohan Dev Vs. Santosh Mohan Dev and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: [2001]104CompCas404(Gauhati)

1. This appeal is directed against the two orders passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the CLB) in Company Petition No. 52/98 u/s 397/398 of the Companies Act which has arisen in the following circumstances.2. Crozier's Agency Private Limited, pro forma respondent No.6 is a Company belonging to one family consisting of three brothers each with sharholding in the proportion of one third. Two of the brothers, who are respondents in this proceeding, brought an action before the CLB alleging, inter alia, that the shareholding position has altered by issue of additional shares in favour of the appellant group and that one of the respondents was removed from the office of the Director. Considering all the aspect of the matter the CLB suggested the parties for resolving the dispute amicably. The CLB accordingly passed an order on 16.12.1998 suggesting for restoration of parity in the shareholding and ordering one of the petitioners to continue in the Board of Directors ...

Assam State Transport Corporation Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This writ application depicts the most callous attitude of the State of Assam causing loss to the public revenue.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :3. The petitioner herein is the Assam State Transport Corporation, a public sector undertaking. The State of Assam allotted a plot of land to the petitioner corporation measuring about 91 Bighas in Ulubari Village under Ulubari Mouza, District-Kamrup covered by Dag No. 278, 279 and 280 and the said area is known as Rupnagar within the Guwahati city. The petitioner corporation took over possession of the said Land and established its units. An area measuring about 13 Bighas was lying vacant and the said land was developed by the petitioner by spending about Rs. 19 lakhs received from the N.E.C. in order to have a inter-State bus terminus and in support of the claim that it was developed by them by spending money, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner has produced before me the records as well the other reco...

Shri Kosheswar Bharali Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for Mandamus on the respondents not to settle the Salmore-Nimatighat Parght through tender for the year 1999-2000 and for quashing the order of the Government communicated by WT Message dated 25-6-99 rejecting the application of the petitioner for extension of the settlement made in his favour in respect of the said Parghat. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is the sitting lessee of Salmore-Nimatighat Parghat since 1995. For the year 1997-98, the said Salmore-Nimatighat Parghat was settled with the petitioner and the petitioner operated motorised passenger boat service as per the said settlement but suffered heavy losses. He, therefore, appealed to the State Government for settling the said Parghat in his favour for the year 1998-99 and the Government settled the said parghat with the petitioner at 10% enhanced rate upon the last years settled value. The said p...

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Gattani

Court: Guwahati

Britesh Kumar, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated August 2, 1996, passed by the learned single judge in Civil Rule No. 1487 of 1991 (see ). The learned single judge set aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer holding it to be contrary to the provisions of Section 205 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Revenue impugns the order by the present proceedings in appeal.2. Heard Shri K. P. Sarma, for the appellants, and Shri D. K. Misra, for the respondent.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this matter are that the petitioner-respondent won two lottery prizes for a sum of Rs. 10,50,000 and the other for Rs. 18,000 during the period pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. The payment of prize money was made by Chandra Agencies. According to the petitioner-respondent, Chandra Agencies deducted a sum of Rs. 2,62,500 and a sum of Rs. 4,500 at source in respect of the two amounts of prize money indicated above. Chandra Agencies, it appea...