Guwahati Court January 2001 Judgments

Sudipta Kalita Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Barthakur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Govt. Advocate. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 245/2000. Pursuant to tender notice dated 7.6.1999 the competent authority settle the Excise Warehouse at Tezpur for wholesale supply of Potable Alcohol/Rectified Spirit Grade-I in favour of the respondent No. 4 M/s. Aparajita Exports. The petitioner was one of tenderers and he challenged the order of settlement on the ground that the tender submitted by the Respondent No. 4 was not in accordance with the requirements of the said tender. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 1.12.2000 dismissed the said writ petition holding that there was no violation of the conditions of tender. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the condition No. 12 was not complied with by the private respondent. The condition No. 12 ...

Sudipta Kalita Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

P.G. Agarwal, J.1. Heard Mr. A.R. Barthakur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Govt. Advocate.2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 245/2000. Pursuant to tender notice dated 7.6.1999 the competent authority settle the Excise Warehouse at Tezpur for wholesale supply of Potable Alcohol/Rectified Spirit Grade-I in favour of the respondent No. 4 M/s. Aparajita Exports. The petitioner was one of tenderers and he challenged the order of settlement on the ground that the tender submitted by the Respondent No. 4 was not in accordance with the requirements of the said tender. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 1.12.2000 dismissed the said writ petition holding that there was no violation of the conditions of tender. Hence the present appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the condition No. 12 was not complied with by the private respondent. The condition No. 12 reads...

Dilip Baruah Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Surveillance Worker in the establishment of respondent No.4. The only ground for seeking such appointment in this writ petition is that the petitioner is a handicapped person.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a handicapped person and he has been suffering from traumatic paralysis of the left hand and as such he is a handicapped person. His percentage of disablement is 60% as evident from the certificate issued by the Jt. Director of Health Services, Sonitpur at Tezpur mentioned in Annexure-A to the Writ petition. Being situated, with the said disablement, the petitioner has approached the respondents for his appointment in any Grade III or Grade IV post particularly, as Surveillance Worker and the District Malaria Officer, Sonitpur at Tezpur vide his communication dated 26.2.1988 appointed the petitioner as S...

Ghisalal Agarwala Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Guwahati

M C. Jain, C. J.At the instance of the assessee Ghisalal Agarwala under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal by its order dated 2nd Dec., 1996, to this court for our opinion. The question of law reads as follows -'Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal did not err in law in holding that tie amount of Rs. 76,912 received by the assessee from the Sikkim lottery is includible in the assessee's total income '2. Before we answer the aforementioned question of law, it is necessary to have a brief look at the facts of the case. The assessee had received Rs. 76,912 as a result of winning of prize from Sikkim lottery and it remains undisputed before us that a sum of Rs. 8,088 was deducted at source under the Sikkim Income Tax Rules.3. The assessee while giving its income-tax return, did not include the income earned in Sikkim. The assessing officer vide his order dated 23-3-1990, Annexure-...

Ghisalal Agarwala Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

Court: Guwahati

At the instance of the assessee Ghisalal Agarwala under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the following questions of law has been referred by the Tribunal by its order dated 2-12-1996 to this Court for our opinion. The questions of law reads as follows:-1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 76912 received by the assessee from the Sikkim lottery is includible in the assessee's total income?2. Before we answer the aforementioned question of law, it is necessary to have a brief look at the facts of the case. The assessee had received Rs. 76,912 as a result of winning of prize from Sikkim lottery and it remains undisputed before us that a sum of Rs. 8,088 was deducted at source under the Sikkim Income-tax Rules.3. The assessee while giving its income-tax return, did not include the income earned in Sikkim, The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 23.3.1990, Annexure-A, assessed the asses...

Ghisalal Agarwala Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

Court: Guwahati

N.C. Jain, C.J.At the instance of the assessee Ghisalal Agarwala under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the following questions of law has been referred by the Tribunal by its order dated 2-12-1996 to this Court for our opinion. The questions of law reads as follows:-1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 76912 received by the assessee from the Sikkim lottery is includible in the assessee's total income?2. Before we answer the aforementioned question of law, it is necessary to have a brief look at the facts of the case. The assessee had received Rs. 76,912 as a result of winning of prize from Sikkim lottery and it remains undisputed before us that a sum of Rs. 8,088 was deducted at source under the Sikkim Income-tax Rules.3. The assessee while giving its income-tax return, did not include the income earned in Sikkim, The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 23.3.1990, Annexure-A, ass...

Jogendra Sarkar Vs. District Magistrate and Collector and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.12.1990 of the Revenue Officer (SDO Khowai), West Tripura, directing restoration of possession of 0.20 acre of land in favour of the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 18.3.1994 of the District Collector, West Tripura, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.1990 of the Revenue Officer, West Tripura.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was in possession of 0.20 acre of land which was recorded in favour of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No 3 filed complaint case No. 131/RST/KH/ 90 under section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). An enquiry was conducted and after examination of field enquiry report and records of rights, the Revenue Officer. (SDO Khowai), West Tripura, held that the petitioner was in possession of 0.20 acre of land in plot No. 801 (part) in contravention of sect...

Arun Chandra Bora Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: I(2002)DMC63

1. This Revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Crl. A.No. 14/95 confirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 498(A) Ipc and modifying the sentence to 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 in default further imprisonment for Rs. 15 days.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner Sri Arun Kr. Bora married one Smt. Prava Bora on 16.6.80 as per Hindu rites. Thereafter they started living as husband and wife for some time. The petitioner was working as Grade IV employee under the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam unfortunately the couple were not blessed with any issue. On that stage, the petitioner wanted to marry again to which the wife was objected and thus led to the development of bitter relationship in between husband and wife.3. On 22.2.90 Smt. Prava Bora lodged an F.I.R. with the Geeta Nagar P.S.alleging inter alia that her husband, the peti...

Jogendra Sarkar Vs. District Magistrate and Collector and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.12.1990 of the Revenue Officer (SDO Khowai), West Tripura, directing restoration of possession of 0.20 acre of land in favour of the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 18.3.1994 of the District Collector, West Tripura, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.1990 of the Revenue Officer, West Tripura.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was in possession of 0.20 acre of land which was recorded in favour of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No 3 filed complaint case No. 131/RST/KH/ 90 under section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). An enquiry was conducted and after examination of field enquiry report and records of rights,the Revenue Officer. (SDO Khowai), West Tripura, held that the petitioner was in possession of 0.20 acre of land in plot No. 801 (part) in contravention of secti...

Arun Chandra Bora Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: I(2002)DMC63

1. This Revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Crl. A.No. 14/95 confirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 498(A) Ipc and modifying the sentence to 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 in default further imprisonment for Rs. 15 days.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner Sri Arun Kr. Bora married one Smt. Prava Bora on 16.6.80 as per Hindu rites.Thereafter they started living as husband and wife for some time. The petitioner was working as Grade IV employee under the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam unfortunately the couple were not blessed with any issue. On that stage, the petitioner wanted to marry again to which the wife was objected and thus led to the development of bitter relationship in between husband and wife.3. On 22.2.90 Smt. Prava Bora lodged an F.I.R. with the Geeta Nagar P.S.alleging inter alia that her husband, the petit...