Guwahati Court September 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Down Town Hospital Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961'). 2. The respondent herein carries on the business of a Hospital. For the assessment year 1994-95, the respondent claimed a deduction under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I of the Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 14,85,387. The Assessing Officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-I, Guwahati, in his assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961, dated 5.3.1997 held that since the assessee company was notan industrial undertaking, it was not eligible for deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Act, 1961. Against the said order of assessment, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the issue as to whether the respondent was entitled to deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Act, 1961, had been decided ...

Gopendra Goswami and ors. Vs. Haradhan Das and ors.

Court: Guwahati

U.B. Saha, J.1. The appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1996 whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree dated 2-5-1996 and 9-5-1996 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S. 239 of 1983 wherein the suit was partly allowed and accordingly decreed.2. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acherjee, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The following facts need to be noticed for proper understanding of the controversy between the parties:The appellants as plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No. 239 of 1983 In the Court of ...

Tamsher Ali and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. This batch of writ petitions and the two writ appeals are before us in terms of the order passed on 18.05.2007 by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 484/2005. The writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.6.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 247/2005, by which the leaned Single Judge entertained the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of the contractual bill amount pertaining to the works completed by the petitioner in terms of the work orders issued by the respondents during the period from 14.11.1996 to 12.03.2004. The writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order dated 08.06.2005 in terms of the earlier judgment and order dated 31.05.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 8995/2004 (Jatin Pathqk v. State of Assam and Ors.), which wasted claiming similar relief.2. Since the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment and order dated 31.05.2005 in WP(C) No. 3354/2004. a little reference to the facts involved in...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. City Lyngdoh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2010ACJ86

B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. The judgment and award dated 10.8.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong in M.A.C. Appeal No. 3 of 2007 has been assailed by two insurance companies. M.A.C. Appeal No. 3 of 2007 has been filed by the insurance company of the truck No. AS 01-K-5774 praying for exonerating the insurance company totally on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not convered under the policy. M.A.C. Appeal No. 4 of 2007 has been filed by the insurance company of truck No. AS 01-M 1929 basically to reduce the ratio of the liability arising out of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles. For easy reference, I would refer the insurance companies by their truck numbers in this judgment. Since the appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. v.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (truck No. AS 01-K 5774) and Mr. A. Khan, t...

Ravi Jhunjhunwala and anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Mishra and anr.

Court: Guwahati

B.D. Agarwal, J.1. Both the aforesaid revision applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment since the cause of action, for filing the revision applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Briefly CrPC), so as to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, stems out of the same incident and common facts. At the same time, two accused persons before this Court are seeking quashing of the FIR No. 50 (3) of 2007 at Lumdingiri Police Station and Criminal Complaint Case No 824 (S) of 2007, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, on the same grounds.2. I have heard Mrs. PDB Baruah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri MF Qureshi, learned Counsel, represented the complainant/respondent. When the case was last heard on 14.05.2008 it was thought it proper to ascertain the view of the State. Accordingly State of Meghalaya was also impleaded as respondent No. 2. Today, Shri ND Chullai, learned...

Ratan Karmakar Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned Amicus Curiae who was appointed on 10-9-2008 in place of Mr. K. K. Gupta, earlier appointed Amicus Curiae since Mr. Gupta was found absent on 10-9-2008 when this appeal was taken up for hearing as part heard matters as Mr. Gupta was heard on 22-8-2008 as amicus curiae. Also heard Mr. K. C. Mahanta, the learned P. P. Assam.2. This criminal appeal from jail has been directed against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short 'R. I.') for life so imposed the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 225(S)2000 by his judgment and order dated 15-3-2002.3. The factual matrix briefly as emerged from the F.I.R. dated 16-8-2000 lodged by P.W. 2, Dilip Lohar with the Dhekiajuli Police Station is that on the night of 15-8-2000 the appellant assaulted his wife Smt. Budhni Karmakar (hereinafter referred to as, 'the decea...

Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and ors. Vs. State of Assam and o ...

Court: Guwahati

Amitava Roy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions register an identical challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 3D, 3E, Clause (ii) and (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 21 as well as Section 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21A, 23 and 25(xiii) of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 as amended by Assam Agricultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Assam Agricultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act,2006 with the consequential relief of refund of the cess collected thereunder by the respondents together with the interest @ 15% thereon for the period 13.08.2001 to 08.12.2005 and till such time the same is exacted from the petitioners.2. The contextual facts though vary minimally, the spectrum of assailments being strikingly common in the cases, these petitions were analogously heard and this adjudication would answer the issues raised.3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Section Jahan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 5491 /2001,...

Tapan Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura

Court: Guwahati

B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The sole appellant stands convicted Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 18-9-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 98 (WT/A) of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation of 2 years SI. Being aggrieved with the conviction, the convict has preferred this appeal.2. We have heard Sri. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant. The State was represented by Sri D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence proffered by the prosecution. The defence case was by and large of total denial. It appears that the appellant had taken an alibi to rebut the prosecution evidence that he had absconded after the incidence, but no evidence was produced by the accused to prove that he was always at home.3. At the outset, ...

Pu Lalkanglova Sailo Vs. Pi Ngurthantluangi Sailo

Court: Guwahati

H. Baruah, J.1. Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the sole respondent.2. Order dated 30-7-2007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Aizawl, Mizoram is the subject matter of challenge under this revision. Before bringing the dispute to a Court of Law, the permanent Lok Adalat put the dispute in conciliation, after receipt of the version of the petitioner on three occasions. The dispute could not be resolved/settled between the respondent and the petitioner herein and the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, by resorting to the provisions of Chapter VIA of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 decided the dispute between the parties as reflected in the impugned order.3. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this Court to set aside and quashed the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.4. Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very out set of his argument criticizes the order that it is illegal...

Chandramati Devi Vs. Rajib Bora and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4909/2005.2. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner, a Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. AS 01/L-7753 with the requisition compensation w.e.f. 21.02.05. Further prayer made in the writ petition was to assess the damage caused to the vehicle during requisition and to pay the amount thereof.3.The writ petition was entertained byway of issuance of notice on 29.07.05. By order dated 31.08.05, this Court upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties including the State counsel passed the following order:31.08.05Heard Mr. Borbhuyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Barman learned State counsel for the official respondents.On a consideration of the rival stands taken in the pleadings of the parties, this Court fells that before taking up the issue fo...