Guwahati Court June 2000 Judgments

Kamakhya Prasad Agarwalla Vs. Pradeep Kumar Yadav

Court: Guwahati

1. This petition under Rule 36-A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police as applicable in the State of Meghalaya read with Article 227 of the Constitution has been directed the order dated 15.10.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Shillong, in Title Civil Appeal No. 1(T) 1998.2. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), by the impugned order dated 15.10.99, passed in Title Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998 set aside the judgment and decree of eviction of the defendant to the extent that the defendant who was dispossessed, the restored back to possession of the suit premises measuring 6' 2' x 3' 8' within a period of 3(three) months. It is pertinent to mention here that the said order of the learned first appellate court was put into execution and the defendant-tenant who was earlier evicted in execution of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court was put back into possession.3. Before we examine the legality and validity of the impugned or...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudarshan Plywood Industries Ltd. (Now ...

Court: Guwahati

Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati, by its order dated June 19, 1998, in compliance with the order passed by theSupreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7651 of 1996, has referred the following' question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of Section 32AB to the assessee after holding' that the income is agricultural income which is exempt from income-tax under Section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1988-89. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on a sum of Rs. 40,95,058 holding that it was sale proceeds of eucalyptus trees, hence not business income but income from other sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, took a different view and allowed benefit of deduction to the asses...

Prem Prasad Kalita Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. The fairness in action in the administrative sphere is the question for adjudication which has surfaced in the following circumstances: 1. The respondent No. 1 is the Food Corporation of India, constituted and established under the (The) Food Corporations Act, 1964. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 are its officials. The petitioner is also working in the same establishment as Technical Assistant in Grade-1. By an order dated 12.2.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) 15 Technical Assistant Grade I and Grade II were transferred and posted to the places shown against each in the said notification. The petitioner, by the aforesaid order was transferred from Guwahati to Dibrugarh in his own grade. The petitioner challenged the above order so far reality to his transfer in T.S.No.260 of 1998. The Trial Court, on an application of the petitioner for an ad interim injunction ordered the parties to maintain status quo as on 21.9.1998. Both the parties are at issue on the reach, and status of t...

Prem Prasad Kalita Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. The fairness in action in the administrative sphere is the question for adjudication which has surfaced in the following circumstances: 1. The respondent No. 1 is the Food Corporation of India, constituted and established under the (The) Food Corporations Act, 1964. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 are its officials. The petitioner is also working in the same establishment as Technical Assistant in Grade-1. By an order dated 12.2.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) 15 Technical Assistant Grade I and Grade II were transferred and posted to the places shown against each in the said notification. The petitioner, by the aforesaid order was transferred from Guwahati to Dibrugarh in his own grade. The petitioner challenged the above order so far reality to his transfer in T.S.No.260 of 1998. The Trial Court, on an application of the petitioner for an ad interim injunction ordered the parties to maintain status quo as on 21.9.1998. Both the parties are at issue on the reach, and status of the ...

Wood Crafts Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in production of wood and articles of Wood falling under T.I. 16-B of the First Schedule to the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. In the manufacture of Plywood, layers of veneers are glued together by means of synthetic Resin such as urea Formaldehyde Resin (for short UF Resin). and Phenol Formaldehyde Resin (for short PF Resin). The petitioners purchased the raw materials for the manufacture of solution of U.F. Resin and P.F. Resin and produced the said two solutions for captive use in their factory for the manufacture of Plywood. By order dated 12.9.90 (Annexure-4), the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Dibrugarh held that the solutions of U.F. and P.F. Resin used by the petitioners in their factory for manufacturing plywood and plywood products were correctly classified under T.I. 15-A of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for the period 1.3.81 to 28.2.86 and were also liable to excise duty. B...

Wood Crafts Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2000(71)ECC61

ORDERA.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in production of wood and articles of Wood falling under T.I. 16-B of the First Schedule to the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. In the manufacture of Plywood, layers of veneers are glued together by means of synthetic Resin such as urea Formaldehyde Resin (for short UF Resin). and Phenol Formaldehyde Resin (for short PF Resin). The petitioners purchased the raw materials for the manufacture of solution of U.F. Resin and P.F. Resin and produced the said two solutions for captive use in their factory for the manufacture of Plywood. By order dated 12.9.90 (Annexure-4), the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Dibrugarh held that the solutions of U.F. and P.F. Resin used by the petitioners in their factory for manufacturing plywood and plywood products were correctly classified under T.I. 15-A of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for the period 1.3.81 to 28.2.86 and were also liable to excise dut...

Cit Vs. India Carbon Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

Chowdhury, J.The present proceeding is initiated at the instance of the revenue on an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer the two questions of law enumerated in their application under section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, which was finally turned down by the Tribunal. The application relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The original assessment order was passed by the assessing officer on 28-1-1988, and Rs. 15,24,434 was disallowed out of the total interest claimed by the assessee at Rs. 1,41,08,898. The assessee went in appeal up to the Commissioner (Appeals), about the disallowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the assessment and directed the assessing officer to adjudicate the claim of interest for the revenue deduction in the light of the directions passed in its order. A fresh assessment was made thereafter by the asse...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Carbon Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. The present proceeding is initiated at the instance of the Revenue on an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer the two ques-tions of law enumerated in their application under section 256(1) before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, which was finally turned down by the Tribunal. The application relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on January 28, 1988, and Rs. 15,24,434 was disallowed out of the total interest claimed by the assessee at Rs. 1,41,08,898. The assesses wenton appeal up to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), hereinafter referred as ('the CIT(A)'), about the disallowance. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the order of the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the claim of interest for revenue deduction in the light of the directions passed in its order...

Mustt Sahida Khatun and ors. Vs. Secretary, Tezpur Hindustani Muslim P ...

Court: Guwahati

1. Earlier a Commission was appointed by this Court to sort out the matter. The Commissioner has submitted a report and there he has stated that the present appellants are not wiling to compromise the matter and as such this matter is heard. 2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondents. This Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings of facts by both the courts below. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of right title of the plaintiff over the suit holding described in Schedule-A and for a further declaration that the land described in Schedule-B is a Government reserved land for the Masjid and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the said land as described in the Schedule and for further declaration that the properties described in Schedule-C belongs to the plaintiff. 3. The mosque in question was established in the year 1920 by some followers through contri...

Mustt Sahida Khatun and ors. Vs. Secretary, Tezpur Hindustani Muslim P ...

Court: Guwahati

1. Earlier a Commission was appointed by this Court to sort out the matter. The Commissioner has submitted a report and there he has stated that the present appellants are not wiling to compromise the matter and as such this matter is heard. 2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondents. This Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings of facts by both the courts below. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of right title of the plaintiff over the suit holding described in Schedule-A and for a further declaration that the land described in Schedule-B is a Government reserved land for the Masjid and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the said land as described in the Schedule and for further declaration that the properties described in Schedule-C belongs to the plaintiff. 3. The mosque in question was established in the year 1920 by some followers through contributi...