Guwahati Court May 2009 Judgments

Tripura Rajya Nath Kalyan Samity and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2009Gau142

B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioners herein are basically seeking implementation of Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Reservation Act'), whereby the benefit of reservation of certain percentage of Seats for the students from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have been provided in the Central Educational Institutions (for short 'CEI'). Precisely the prayer is confined to National Institute of Technology (for short 'NIT'), Agartala which is a CEI within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Reservation Act, and situated within tribal area referred to in 6th Schedule of the Constitution, since the said NIT is not extending reservation facility to OBC students.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were represented by Shri A. Lodh, learned Central Government Counsel whereas the NIT (Respondents Nos. 4 an...

Abhijit Alias Ajit Sarkar and ors. Vs. State of Tripura

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2943

Maibam B.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. B. R. Das Roy, learned Public Prosecutor In-charge appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-12-2007 and 14-12-2007 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in S. T. No. 40 (NT/D) of 2007. The present two appellants were convicted for the commission of the offence under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC, vide the impugned judgment and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to suffer imprisonment for one year, vide the impugned order.3. The charge framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar against the two accused-appellants in S.T. No. 40 (NT/D) of 2007 is as follows:That you on or about 14-12-2006 during...

J.P. Rai, Ias Vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2009Gau151

J. Chelameshwar, C.J.1. When this matter was taken up on 29-4-2009 Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent in PIL No. 50/04) raised a preliminary objection regarding the legality of the proceedings before this Full Bench. According to the learned Counsel petitions filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 are required to be heard either by a single Judge or a Division Bench consisting of two Judges and the Rules framed by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 225 do not contemplate hearing of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Bench consisting of more than two Judges unless a Division Bench hearing the writ petition makes a specific reference of any question of law which in the opinion of the Bench hearing the matter is required to be considered and decided by a Full Bench or a Larger Bench. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the instant case there is no such order of reference by the Divi...

Jenar Marak Vs. Garo Hills Autonomous District Council and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2009Gau129

ORDERU.B. Saha, J.1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sri Jenar Marak, challenging the order dated 9-7-2004 passed by the Ld. Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills District Council, Tura in G.D.C. - Rev. (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 1999 whereby and where-under the Ld. Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills District Council, Tura while disposing the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 21-12-1998 in case No. GDC-Rev/56 of 1998-99 wherein the Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, awarded adjournment cost of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only), cancelled the periodic patta No. 2043 of the petitioner.2. Heard Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel for GHADC, respondent Nos. 1 &2.3. On perusal of the records available before this Court, it appears that in some of the documents it is written as Garo Hills Au...

Shri Kula Singh Bordoloi S/O. Late Leheka Bordoloi Vs. the State of As ...

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Patowary, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the authorities of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council.2. It is a case of inadvertent mistake on the part of the authorities, but for which the petitioner would have found himself to be in the same category as that of his other colleagues in service.3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 01.11.90 as Muster Roll (MR) worker in the Public Works Department (PWD). The MR workers who had been similarly appointed on 01.11.90 alongwith the petitioner and who have been named in the petition have been regularized in their services by office order dated 24.10.05. However, the services of the petitioner was not regularized. He made the representations to the authorities, but no effect. Hence this writ petition.4. In the counter ...

Shri Kula Singh Bordoloi S/O. Late Leheka Bordoloi Vs. the State of As ...

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Patowary, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the authorities of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council.2. It is a case of inadvertent mistake on the part of the authorities, but for which the petitioner would have found himself to be in the same category as that of his other colleagues in service.3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 01.11.90 as Muster Roll (MR) worker in the Public Works Department (PWD). The MR workers who had been similarly appointed on 01.11.90 alongwith the petitioner and who have been named in the petition have been regularized in their services by office order dated 24.10.05. However, the services of the petitioner was not regularized. He made the representations to the authorities, but no effect. Hence this writ petition.4. In the counter a...

Shri Prabhat Choudhury Son of Late Mahendra Choudhury Vs. State of Ass ...

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, which was imposed on him pursuant to a departmental proceeding. 2. The petitioner while was serving as Sub-Divisional Housing Officer under the respondents was placed under suspension by office order dated 11.8.2000. Thereafter, the Annexure-C charge sheet dated 5.1.2001 was issued to him leveling two charges, which were reproduced below:1. That while you are working as Sub- Divisional Housing Officer, Assam State Housing Board, Guwahati-5 as per report of enquiry committee, you have given possession of Boards land to you own people such as Sri Tapan Kalita. Even you were physically present during the time of erecting of house and also you were invited Sri L. Rabha, Chowkidar during house entering ceremony. Which is nothing but gross indiscipline and violation of Service conduct Rules. Therefore, you are hereby charged with gross indiscipline and violation of Service conduct Rules. That while you wer...

Shri Prabhat Choudhury Son of Late Mahendra Choudhury Vs. State of Ass ...

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, which was imposed on him pursuant to a departmental proceeding. 2. The petitioner while was serving as Sub-Divisional Housing Officer under the respondents was placed under suspension by office order dated 11.8.2000. Thereafter, the Annexure-C charge sheet dated 5.1.2001 was issued to him leveling two charges, which were reproduced below:1. That while you are working as Sub- Divisional Housing Officer, Assam State Housing Board, Guwahati-5 as per report of enquiry committee, you have given possession of Boards land to you own people such as Sri Tapan Kalita. Even you were physically present during the time of erecting of house and also you were invited Sri L. Rabha, Chowkidar during house entering ceremony. Which is nothing but gross indiscipline and violation of Service conduct Rules. Therefore, you are hereby charged with gross indiscipline and violation of Service conduct Rules. That while you were...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peerchand Ratanlal Baid (Huf), Propriet ...

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against an order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). By the aforesaid order the learned Tribunal has interfered with the addition of undisclosed income of the respondent assessee to the extent of Rs. 13,66,715/- for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 as made by the Assessing Officer.2. The brief facts relevant to the present adjudication may be noticed at this stage. There was a search in the Baid Group of Companies on 13.9.1995. The respondent-assessee, a HUF, as the proprietor of one of the group companies, filed the block return for the period 1986-87 to 1996-97 showing undisclosed income of Rs. 60 lakhs. The assessment was completed under Section 158BC of the Act on 30.9.96 determining an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,17,25,416/-. The respondent assessee filed a first appeal ...

Hindustan Goods Carriers (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2009)24VST392(Gauhati)

I.A. Ansari, J.1. Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Department of Finance, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By order dated February 26, 2008 (annexure A to the writ petition), an assessment of tax payable by the petitioner under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, was made by respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Taxes, Unit 'B', Guwahati, the assessment being to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs. Besides direction to make payment of the said assessed amount of tax, the petitioner was, vide letter, dated February 26, 2008, also directed to show cause as to why penalty of an amount of Rs. 1.50 crore should not be imposed on the petitioner. Following the said notice to show cause, an order was passed on March 19, 2008, by respondent No. 3, imposing penalty of the said amount of Rs. 1.50 crore. The petitioner was, then, served with a notice of demand for payment of Rs...