Guwahati Court November 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hls Asia Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Amitava Roy, J. 1. The challenge to deduction of tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereafter referred to as, 'the Act') by Oil India Limited, Duliajan (hereafter referred to as, 'the OIL') from its bills for the services rendered under Contract No. OIL/CCO/GEOL/GLOBAL/ 07/98 having failed, the writ petitioner, M/s HLS Asia Ltd., is in appeal.2. We have heard Dr. Todi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. D. Das, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. S. N. Sharma, Senior Advocate for OIL and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for the Revenue.3. The appellant's pleaded version is that it is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in contract business with OIL and provides highly professional and technical services in connection with extraction of oil and is also engaged in wire-line logging activities. It entered into a contract registered as above with OIL on September 10, 1999 for carrying out wire-line logging and perf...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sujit Suklabaidya
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The respondent Sri Sujit Suklabaidya was working as a peon in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lekhapani, Silchar, Assam. The School was situated in Army Cantonment. In the last week of February 2002, the Joint Commissioner (Acad.) received an anonymous telephonic message that few male staff of the School were misbehaving with girl students. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner directed the principal of the School to make an enquiry. Accordingly the Principal of the school constituted a Committee of 3 (three) teachers to ascertain the truth in the allegation. Accordingly the Committee examined 13 girl students on 27.2.2002 of classes VII, VIII and IX and report was submitted to the School Authority on the same date. On that day few girls were not available in the school. Hence, three more such girl students were interviewed on the next date and another report was submitted to the principal of the School on 2.3.2002. After these two preliminary reports one formal Committee consist...
Assam Tent and TarpaulIn Industries Vs. Assam Small Industries Develop ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
A.H. Saikia, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Money Suit ('M.S.') No. 215/01.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a money suit above mentioned against the defendants/respondents for realization of sum of Rs. 7,50,854 being the value of supply items inclusive of Assam General Sales Tax at the rate of 8% together with compound interest of 18% per annum on the said amount wherein the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff was mentioned as under:M/s Assam Tent & Tarpaulin Industries, a Proprietorial concern of Smti. Sarita Borar, W/o Shri Mool chand Borar, having it's administrative office situated at First Floor, Dugar Building Jail Road. Guwahati-781001 (Assam) Represented by Shri Moolchand Borar.... Plaintiff3. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement wherein, inte...
Sarala Bala Roy Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. This appeal brought before this court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is against the judgment dated 25.8.1994 in Misc. (LA) Case No. 93 of 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri. The proceeding before the learned District Judge was on a reference made under Section 30 of the Act pertaining to apportionment of compensation between the parties in the case.2. We have heard Mr. S. Sarma and Mr. Jayanta Deka, learned Counsels who appeared for the appellant as well as Mr. D.C. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel representing the private respondents. We have also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Government Advocate who appears for the respondent No. 1.3. The reference under Section 30 of the Act made by the Collector arose out of a land acquisition proceeding initiated under LA Case Nos. 76-77 whereby land was acquired by the Assam Government...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel appearing for the Department/appellant as well as Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Joshi, and Mrs. U. Chakravorty, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee/respondent.2. At the time of admission of this appeal on May 16, 2005, the following substantial question of law was framed:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as upheld by the Tribunal is legally tenable, the same being in violation of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962?3. In the backdrop of the above formulated substantial question of law, Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated March 8, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in I.T.A. No. 4 (Gauhati)/2004, for the assessment year 1998-99 is hit by the provision of law laid down under Section 46A of the Income-tax...
G. Anneduari (No. 850846035, Constable) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Amitava Roy, J.1. The appellant before us, having unsuccessfully challenged his dismissal from service as a disciplinary measure, is in appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.08.2003, passed in W.P.(C) No. 1355/1999.2. We have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Advocate assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. G. Singh, learned Central Government Counsel, for the respondents.3. The facts in short leading to the filing of the writ petition as narrated therein, are essential to be noticed. The appellant, while deployed as a sentry with the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter also referred to as the 'Force'), being attached to HQ/76 BN CRPF Halmira, Golaghat, was charged in a criminal case being Golaghat P.S. Case No. 257/1997 under Section 379 IPC, following a complaint of theft of a VIP suitcase lodged by one S.I. T.B. Hazari, 76 BN CRPF of Jonaki Nagar. The appellant as a consequence thereof, was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26...
Md. Abdul Kader Mian Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
1. Petitioner, the elder brother of a detenue under the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act' for short), in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the order of detention and accordingly, prays for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of the detenue forthwith. The order of detention dated 1.6.2006 was made by the District Magistrate, Kamrup (Metropolitan) under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The order directed his detention in Central Jail, Guwahati for a period of three months from the date of issue of the order. The detenue at the relevant time, was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Guwahati in connection with S.O.U. P.S. Case No. 1/2001 under Section 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/124A/153(A), IPC and Chhaygaon P. S. No. 6/06 under Section 120(B)/121/122/427 IPC read with Section 3 of E.S. Act & 10/13 UA (P) Act.2. The detenue, on receiving the detention order, made a representation (undated) through the Superintendent of Cent...
Mahibul Haque Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
P.G. Agarwal, J1. Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.S. Sinha, learned Public Prosecutor.2. In Sessions Case No. 62 (DMFT) 2001 the accused appellant Mahibul Haque and another accused Makibur Rahman were tried for the commission of offence Under Section 448/364/302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC on the allegation that on 8th July, the two accused persons trespassed into the house of Yachi Ali and kidnapped one Pullong Ali and thereafter in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Pullong Ali.3. During trial, as many as ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. One witness was examined as co-witness and the defence examined three witnesses. The learned trial Court convicted the two accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, further imprisonment for 3 months for the offence Under Section 364(A) IPC. The accused persons were also convicted Under Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced...
Partha Sarathi Paul (Dr.) Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Mutum B.K. Singh, J.1. The judgment dated 29.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2883 of 2002 dismissing the petitioner's prayer to quash the Government order of stay of transfer order dated 17.4.2002 and allow him to take over the charge of Senior Medical Officer of Kalain C.H.C., Cachar District as per orders dated 7.1.2002 and 19.3.2002, is impugned in this appeal.2. The facts in brief, for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant and the private respondent No. 5, Shri Badal Das, are Senior Medical Officers of the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department. The appellant, after serving at different places, was posted at Kalain C.H.C., Cachar District as Senior Medical Officer vide Government order dated 7.1.2002. The said order was later on partially modified before his joining at that place, by a subsequent order dated 19.3.2002 thereby transferring the private respondent No. 5 at Nilambazar P.H.C., Karimganj from Kalain C.H.C., Cacha...
Kulen Mishra Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
U.B. Saha, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Office Order dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure 4) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, the respondent No. 2 herein, and Office Order dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure 5) issued by the Chairman, I.M. (D) Tribunal, Mangaldoi, the respondent No. 3 herein.2. The facts, in short compass, require to be adjudicated upon in this case are that the respondent No. 2 is issued an advertisement in the 'Assam Tribune' inviting applications for the post of Stenographer Grade-II and Grade III on usual scale of pay admissible for the grade wise plus other allowances as admissible under the rules. The petitioner applied for the post submitting his testimonials in response to the said advertisement. Having satisfied the petitioner was asked to appear in the written test, speed test in stenography as well as oral interview before the Central Recruitment Committee, 1993 (in short, 'CRC') headed by the respondent No. 2. Accordingly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »