Court : Guwahati
A. Hazarika, J.1. Both the appeals were heard together in view of the fact that, both the appeals were preferred by the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and 5 to 26 against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 1/91 by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati and they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In R.F.A. No. 16/2004, the Defendant Nos. 5 to 26 who were impleaded vide order dated 25.6.91 in Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 before the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Guwahati, are the appellants in the instant Regular First Appeal being Regular First Appeal No. 16 of 2004 on the file of this Court. The said suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, seeking a decree that they are entitled to the release of 3K 8 Lechas of land described in schedule 'B' from acquisition in terms of agreement dated 19.1.85 and for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to release the said land from acquisition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D.N. BARUAH, J. :All the above civil rules involve common questions of law and fact, therefore, I propose to dispose of these cases by a common judgment.2. In all the above civil rules, the petitioners have challenged the common order dt. 22nd Nov., 1989, annexure-3 to the petitions, passed by the Dy. Commr. of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati, dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner-company for the asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 and confirming the order dt. 9th Dec., 1986, passed by the Agrl. ITO, Assam, Guwahati, disallowing the exemption claimed by the petitioner on certain expenditure.3. The facts, for the purpose of disposal of these cases, may be stated as follows :The above civil rules are in connection with the assessment of agricultural income for the asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioners claimed exemption for the expenses incurred on payment of salary paid to the employees of the tea garden engaged in the operation and manufacture of tea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1991ACJ656; ILR1990KAR4324
Venkatachala, J.1. QUESTION, which has come up for decision by us, the Full Bench, by Reference Order dated 6-9-1990 of a Division Bench made under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Is the following:'Whether the decision of this Court in H.T. Bhandary v. Muniyamma : ILR1985KAR2337 stands impliedly over-ruled in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumari v. Shanta Trivedi : [1989]1SCR761 and in Jyotsna Dey and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. [1987(1) ACJ 172]?'The Reference Order since discloses that the decision of this Court in M.F.A.No.708/1990 (GENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. KHATUJABEE ILR 1990 KAR 3240 was the cause for referring the said question for decision by the Full Bench, it will be useful to advert to it.2. The decision in Khatujabee's case is that of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in an appeal where the award made by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in a fatal accident's action, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR665]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the Award dated 10th December, 1994 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 59 of 1989 whereby the Tribunal declined to pass order of reinstatement rather the tribunal passed an award for payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the workman together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Award.2. It appears that the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication :'Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) that S/Shri Asim Kumar Chatterjee and Nani Gopal Sen Gupta. Clerks (Internal Audit) who were sopped from employment in 1976, be reinstated in Mugma and Badjna Sub-Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields is justified? If ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3651
C.K. Buch, J.1. Both the appellants --original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been held guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' or 'the PC Act'), by the Id. Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 8/ 1990 vide judgment dated 22-3-1993. Both the accused, vide impugned judgment, are directed to undergo S.I. for period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to undergo in default punishment for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. Both the accused are again asked to undergo S.I. for period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and to undergo in default S.I. for period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Both these accused have been imposed S.I. for period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to undergo in default punishment of S.I. for the period of 2 months puni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Gau)404
D.N. BARUAH, J. :All the above civil rules involve common questions of law and fact, therefore, I propose to dispose of these cases by a common judgment.2. In all the above civil rules, the petitioners have challenged the common order dt. 22nd Nov., 1989, annexure-3 to the petitions, passed by the Dy. Commr. of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati, dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner-company for the asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 and confirming the order dt. 9th Dec., 1986, passed by the Agrl. ITO, Assam, Guwahati, disallowing the exemption claimed by the petitioner on certain expenditure.3. The facts, for the purpose of disposal of these cases, may be stated as follows :The above civil rules are in connection with the assessment of agricultural income for the asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioners claimed exemption for the expenses incurred on payment of salary paid to the employees of the tea garden engaged in the operation and manufacture of tea,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. DATTU, J.1. Since the issues in these appeals are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Factual background of the two appeals2. The facts in brief needs to be stated for answering the issues raised. They are: In the case of Purbanchal Cables (C.A. No. 2348 of 2003), the supplier is the manufacturer of Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced (for short "ACSR") for various specifications. The respondent-Board had placed orders for supply of ACSR of different specifications in three (3) quarterly phases, i.e. in June 1992, September 1992 and December 1992 with the appellant vide supply order dated 31.3.1992. In pursuance to the said supply order, the supplier had initially made delivery of goods with respect to three bills on 16.09.1992, but did not receive payment from the respondent. Subsequently, the supplier had made another delivery of goods with respect to nine other bills in between 25.09.1992 and 30.03.1993.These supplies were made after the expiry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.398 of 2005 C.I.T.KOLKATA I Versus M/S.ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD.Smt.A.Ghutghutia, Advocate for the Revenue Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.Das, Advocate for the Respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA And The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :3. d August, 2012. The Court : This appeal is sought to be preferred against judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 11th May, 2005 in relation to assessment year 2000-01 on the following suggested questions of law: i].Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals].is justified in directing the assessing officer to allow the interest on self assessment tax at the admissible rate from the date of payment of the tax upto the date of refund. ii].Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1995)52ITD375(Kol.)
1. The assessee has instituted this appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1987-88.2. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 relate to objection that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment when the same was barred by limitation, when the notice under Section 148 issued was bad in law and when the return filed is to be treated as a return under Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the assessee failed to file return of income within the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The return in this case was due to be filed under Section 139(1) on 31-7-1987. No application for extension of time in Form No. 6 was filed by 31-7-1987. The application for extension of time in Form No. 6 is filed only on 3-8-1987 requesting for extension of time up to 31-10-1987. The reason given in Form No. 6 is that 'audit is in progress and finalisation of account was not complete'. The second application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
N.G. Das, J. 1. By means of this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 which is a tea estate, namely, Anandapur Tea Estate, now owned by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 has challenged the, legality and validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, dated October 16, 1989, contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition.2. I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. A.K. Sharma, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. The only question which calls for consideration is whether Section 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is applicable to the case of the petitioners.4. To answer the question the facts relevant for the purpose may be stated as under :Petitioner No. 1, namely, Anandapur Tea Estate which is situate at Bokakhat in the district of Golaghat originally belonged to the late Jogananda Deva Gos...
Tag this Judgment!