Guwahati Court December 2009 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.
Kitply Industries Ltd. Vs. California Pacific Trading Corporation
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-23-2009
Reported in: [2010]153CompCas345(Gauhati)
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. Pursuant to the order dated July 29, 2009 (Kitply Industries Ltd. v. California Pacific Trading Corporation [2009] 151 Comp Cas 19 (Gau)), by which the preliminary issue was decided against the appellant herein, the appeal is listed for hearing on merits.2. The basic facts of the appeal are stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the abovementioned order which reads as follows (page 21 of 151 Comp Cas):4. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the appellant herein supplied one of its products known as marine teak plywood to the respondent. On the ground that the materials supplied by the appellant were defective the respondent herein instituted a suit in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina. The further details of the suit are not necessary for the present except to state that eventually the said suit came to be decreed on April 12, 2001, for a sum of US $ 22,57,147.58.5. On June 29, 2002, the appellant received a notice dated Jun...
Pradip Kr. Taye and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-10-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR29(Gauhati)
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. This matter is placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the order of reference of the Division Bench dated March 20, 2009.2. The basic facts of the case are:3. All the petitioners herein (10 in number) are employees of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter called 'NEEPCO Ltd.'). They are working at different places in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.4. It is undisputed assertion of the petitioners that all of them originally belonged to the State of Assam and in the State of Assam, each of them was recognized as a person belonging to some scheduled tribe or the other specified under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also assert that they were employed by the respondent - NEEPCO against the vacancies reserved for scheduled tribes.5. The petitioners further assert that from the date of their employment, they were exempted from payment of income-tax in view of Section 10 Sub-section (26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,...
Nirmalendu Dhar Vs. Nani Gopal Ghosh
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-04-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Ass59,AIR2010Gau59
ORDERMaibam B.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for quashing and cancelling the orders dated 25-8-2009 and 27-8-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kailashahar, North Tripura in Case No. Execution 03(M)/2009.3. The present petitioner and the present respondent are the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder respectively in the said Execution 03(M)/2009, which was filed by the decree-holder for execution of a decree passed in his favour on 5-10-2007 in case No. M.S. 02 of 2007. On the day on which the said decree-holder filed his application under Order 21, Rule 11 of the CPC for the execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison and/or by attachment and sale of his movable and immovable properties for realisat...
Radhabari Tea Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Mridul Kumar Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-02-2009
Reported in: [2010]153CompCas579(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The appellant, a private limited company, was, originally, incorporated, under the Companies Act, 1930, and is, therefore, an 'existing company' within the meaning of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant-company is in the business of manufacture and sale of tea and owns a tea estate, which is run under the name and style of Radhabari Tea Estate, situated in the district of Golaghat, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant's tea estate'). For the last few years, the appellant's tea estate ran into losses. Consequently, the appellant's tea estate has not been able to make payment of its various dues, such as, electricity dues, creditors' dues, statutory levies as well as demands from the financial institutions. The electricity supply to the said tea estate stands disconnected since the year 2007 and the appellant's-bank has also declared the appellant-company as a non-performing asset and has accordingly initiated proceedings against the app...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›