Guwahati Court July 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: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas19(Gauhati)
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. This company appeal arises out of an order dated November 19, 2008 in Company Petition No. 10 of 2002 (California Pacific Trading Corporation v. Kitply Industries Ltd. [2009] 148 Comp Cas 345 (Gau)).2. For the purpose of the present the full factual details of the company petition may not be necessary and we shall state only those facts which are relevant.3. The respondent herein, a company incorporated in America, filed the abovementioned company petition under Sections 439, 433(e) and 434(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that the appellant, a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956, be wound up on the ground that the appellant-company is unable to pay its debts.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 Sta...
Dinesh Goyenka and ors. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-28-2009
Reported in: (2010)116CompLJ1(Gau)
P.K. Musahary, J.1. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Bona, learned Counsel for the appellants. Heard also Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17-10-2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions (Spl), Case No. 8(K)/01 corresponding GR Case No. 3737/2000 arising out of Fatasil Ambari Police Station case No. 121/2000 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act sentencing the accused-appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for another one year.3. The prosecution case is that, one Shri Ghiridhar, S.I. of Police, Fatasil Ambari lodged an FIR on 12-8-2000 with the O.C. Fatasil Ambari alleging that on 14-6-2000 at about 8.30 a.m., he along with patrolling staff on duty detected 10(ten) kgs of contraband cannabis (ganja) from the possession of the accused-appella...
Narayan Debnath Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ275
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By judgment and order, dated 30-11-2002, passed in Sessions Case No. 129(N)/2002, by the Additional (Ad hoc) Sessions Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, the appellant herein, namely, Sri Narayan Debnath, stands convicted under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer for his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C., imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to undergo, for his conviction under Section 201, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:(i) As a result of strained relation with his wife, Lalita, the accused beat his wife and drove her away with their two children, both the chi...
Thomas Nongtdu Vs. State of Meghalaya
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-22-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4395
ORDERT. Vaiphei, J.1. The short but interesting question which falls for consideration in this criminal petition presented under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) is whether the petitioner, who has been discharged by Magistrate on the report purportedly filed by the police under Section 169, Cr. P.C. can be subjected to further investigation by the police. The petitioner, who is implicated in connection with Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No. 86(5)09 Under Section 120-B/224/333, IPC, was discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in her order dated 5-6-2009, which is as follows:Date 5-6-2009.C.R. put up today. Seen and perused discharged report from liabilities of the instant case against accused person, Shri Thomas Nongtdu from S.I. K.R. Marak, I.O. of the case dated 5-6-2009.S. I. Marak, vide report above, submits that the accused named above, who was arrested and forwarded before this Court on 4-6-2009 was thoroughly interrogated and during interr...
Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-22-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ56
ORDERT. Vaiphel, J.1. The legality of the notices issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Headquarters, Meghalaya, Shillong under Section 160/91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requiring the petitioners, who are residing in New Delhi, to appear before him at Shillong for recording their statements in connection with Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04 under Section 408/415/418/420/423/424/464/468/471/120-B, I.P.C. and for production of some documents, are under challenge in this writ petition.2. Though the facts pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petition are many, it is not necessary to refer to them in detail as the controversy can be resolved on a narrow compass. The notices are dated 1-11-2007, and dated 28-5-2008 addressed to each of the petitioners, two of which, being illustrative of the other notices, run along the following lines:Office of the Addl. Director General ofPolice CID(Hqr),Meghalaya, Shillong,Notice under Section 166, Cr.P.C.ToShri Sunil BhansaliD...
Chem Trade India (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-21-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST421(Gauhati)
Amitava Roy, J.1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to nullify the order dated December 23, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam elucidating that the item 'power tillers' is taxable at 12.5 per cent under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereafter referred to as, 'the Act') for the period May 1, 2005 to July 28, 2005, i.e., prior to its inclusion in serial No. 65 of the Second Schedule to the enactment. The show-cause notice dated December 29, 2008 of the Superintendent of Taxes (Central VAT Audit Cell) attached to the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati requiring the petitioner-firm to explain as to why its turnover of Rs. 3,72,98,098 for the aforementioned period would not be assessed at that rate is consequently also under challenge.2. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue, for the respondents.3. Whereas, petitioner No. 1 ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›