Guwahati Court February 2002 Judgments

M. Banerjee and Sons and ors. Vs. M.N. Bhagabati and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this Civil Revision and the Misc. Cases are that on 26.7.2000, M/s. M. Banerjee & Sons, filed Execution Case No. 4(H) 2000 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong. In the said application, M/s. M. Banerjee & Sons made a prayer to the Court for directing the sole Arbitrator Shri M. N. Bhagabati to file the original award dated 16.2.2000 in the Court and on receipt of the award passed necessary order for proceeding with the Execution of the award. But, the learned Assistant District Judge, passed orders on 26.7.2000 that as no decree has been filed and enclosed with the Execution Application, the Application is dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong, dismissing (Arb.) Misc. Ex. 4(H) 2000 M/s. M. Banerjee and Sons, have filed a Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 numbered as CR(P) 39 (SG) 2000 before ...

Md. Motiur Rahman Vs. Mustt Achia Kahtoon and ors.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision has arisen out of the order, dated 29-8-2002, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 2, Guwahati, in Title Execution No. 2/2001 arising out of Title Suit No. 22/84, whereby the petitioners application made under Order 21, Rules 99 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected.2. In a nutshell, material facts and various stages, which has given rise to this revision, may be narrated as follows :- For execution of the decree granted in Title Suit No. 22/84, Title Execution No. 2/01 aforementioned was commenced, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 8 being the decree holders and opposite party No. 9 being judgment debtor. The petitioner who has not a party to the suit or to the execution proceeding, made an application in the execution proceeding under Order 21, Rules 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC, his case being that he had been in occupation and use of a portion of the suit property since 1972 by constructing his dwelling houses thereon, b...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Rayang Timber Products (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (2002)82ITD73(Gau.)

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO not to deduct the amount of capital subsidy from the cost of the assets while calculating depreciation allowance and against the direction of the CIT(A) to the AO to recalculate deduction under Section 80HH and Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, by treating the income from interest as business income. The third ground of appeal is general in nature inviting no comments.2. We have received a telegram from the respondent for adjournment of hearing which after due consideration was rejected because the case being very old one.3. In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del), the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has observed that : "When the appeal is presented the same is accepted. Thereafter the concerned clerk in registry verifies whether accompanying documents are received or not and if not a memo is issued calling for the papers which are also required to be attached to appeal memo. ...

income Tax Officer Vs. Patkai Mining and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (2002)82ITD109(Gau.)

1. By this appeal the grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) was wrong in allowing depreciation for the purpose of book profit under Section 115J at rates higher than those specified in Schedule XIV to the Companies Act, 1956, and also that the CIT(A) was wrong in directing the AO to quantify the amount of unabsorbed depreciation and allow carry forward of the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2) in contravention of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 115J. In the instant case the assessee claimed a higher rate of depreciation than what is allowable under the Companies Act. The AO disallowed the same stating that depreciation as provided in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act is only allowable while computing book profit for the purpose of Section 115J. He, therefore, after adding back the depreciation claim of Rs. 57,06,878 allowed the depreciation of Rs. 34,52,030 and computed the book profit @ 30 per cent on the profit thus arrived.2. Before...

Basudev Barman Vs. Secretary, Bechamari Gaon Matshyajibi Samabai Samit ...

Court: Guwahati

R.S. Mongia, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. A.B. Choudhuiy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Salkla, learned counsel for respondent No.l as well as Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment of a learned single Judge, dated 29-1-2002, given in WP (C) No. 2845 of 2001. 3. The respondent No.2. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), by its order dated 20-8-1998, had settled the Pavakati Sondoba fishery for a period of three years from 1998-99 till 31-3-2001 in favour of the appellant, Bordulatop Matshyajibi Samabai Samity Ltd.. will Buragaon, who was the respondent No.3 inthe writ petition. The settlement was for Rs.4,27,967/- and the yearly kist was as follows :-'1998-99..Rs.1,20.216.001999-2000..Rs. 1.4 1,698.002000-2001..Rs. 1,62,953.00' 4. By an order dated 4-4-2001, the Managing Director of the Corporation settled by way of extension th...

Subrata Deb Barma and ors. Vs. State of Tripura and anr.

Court: Guwahati

B.B. Deb, J.1. By the aforesaid two writ petitions, the petitioners seek for a writ or order directing them to be exempted from participating a departmental examination and also releasing their increments and also for a direction that the petitioners shall be deemed to be confirmed on completion of period of probatic.2. Case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 35 of 2000.The petitioners have been appointed in the Grade-II of Tripura Civil Services by promotion vide Notification No. F.2(1)-GA/90(iii) dated 6.7.1991 and put under probation for two years. They were allowed the annual increments up to 6th stage, i.e., upto 1997. Thereafter, their annual increment has been withheld without assigning any reason whatsoever. On the plea of non-passing the departmental examination, the authority withheld the said increment. The petitioner's initial promotion order prescribed for two years, probation but he has never been extended and, as such, on completion of two years, probation the petitioner ...

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B. Lamare, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss Geeta Deka, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents in both the writ petitions. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. These 2 (two) writ petitions have arisen out of the notice dated 15.11.1999 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short 'APPSC') recommending for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) the Irrigation and Flood Control Department of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh (for short 'IFCD') and the same question of facts and law are involved. Hence both writ petitions are disposed by this common judgment.3. The case in short compass is that by advertisement dated 23.3.1999, the APPSC have invited application for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the IFCD. In the said advertisement, it is mentioned that out of 22 posts to be filled up, 18 posts are reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled...

Hari Mohan Das Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

R.S. Mongia, C.J. 1. This judgment and order of ours will dispose of Writ Appeal No. 354 of 2000 and Writ Appeal No. 277 of 1999. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are, that pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.4.1995 issued by the Headmaster of Thomna Binapani High School, apart from others Smti. Rukmini Kalita, writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 2956/95, Shri Harimohan Das, writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 920/97 and Smti. Prativa Sarania (Respondent No. 5 in Civil Rule No. 2956/95) had applied for the post of Hindi Teacher (Senior Grade). The Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, vide his letter dated 12.4.1995 had requested the, Headmaster of the aforesaid school to send the applications of the candidates, who had applied for the post along with the comparative statement. It is stated that the said comparative statement was sent in order of preference. It was the case of Smti. Rukmini Kalita in Civil Rule No. 2956/95 that in that comparati...

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

R.S. Mongia, C.J.1. The appellant-writ petitioner has been serving in the Army since 1983. In November, 1998 he was transferred from Bangalore to Dimapur on promotion as Lt. Colonel. Facts which emerges now, are that one Capt. D.S. Sisodia is alleged to have sent a complaint against the writ petitioner appellant to the authorities on 2.9.2000 which reads as under - 'Bengalore (Karnataka) 02 Sep.2000             0004/DS/01CDA(O)Golibar Maidan,Pune-411001.FALSE CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF CAR ON TRANSFERLT. COL. R. K. SHARMA IN NOV 981. It has recently come to my knowledge that IC-45154 Lt. Col. Raj Kumar Sharma preferred a false claim of Rs. 18,000 for transportation of his car from Bangalore to Dimapur (Nagaland) and of the claim. Actually he did not take any car to Dimapur on posting, because he had sold his old Ford Car to me before going on posting I have also been cheated by him in this car. I paid him Rs. 1.6 lakh for the car, which was not eve...

Managing Director, Food Corporation of India Vs. B. Changthuama

Court: Guwahati

1. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Shri B. Changthuama who was working as Deputy Manager (Legal), Food Corporation of India, Aizawl was placed under suspension by Zonal Manager (East), Calcutta vide order dated 18.8.1987. Dehors of any further details it may be observed here that vide order dated 30.12.1992 respondent herein was reinstated in service by revoking the suspension order. The said order reads as under :'Whereas Sh. Changthuma,Deputy Manager (G) Food Corporation of India, Aizawl, Mizoram was placed under suspension by Zonal Manager(East) Calcutta vide order No. Vig.4(6)/87 dated 18th Angus, 1987 fixing his Headquarters at Regional Office, Gauhati,Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-regulation 5(c) of Regulation 66 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby revokes the said suspension with immediate effect without prejudice of the departmental/Court proceedings pending against him. Fending issue of orders of his posting, Sh. Ch...