Court : Guwahati
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 2825 of 1992. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. We find it unnecessary to issue notice to the other side. 2. We are concerned in this case about the Constitution of Municipal Board, Dhekiajuli. Under Section 11(3) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), ten Commissioners were elected by the electors and two, namely, appellants, were nominated by the State Government. These twelve Commissioners were to meet and elect the Chairman, and Vice-Chairman of the Board. At that stage one of the elected Commissioners filed the writ petition challenging the nomination of the appellants as Commissioners. The first appellant was nominated on the ground that he is a member of other socially and educationally Backward Classes (OBC), the second appellant was nominated as a member belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC). Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D.N. Baruah, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged annexure-5 notice, dated March 30/ 31, 1989, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, Guwahati, in the exercise of the power under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1985-86 proposing to reassess the income for the said assessment year and requiring the petitioner to submit a return of the income in the prescribed form.2. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, the facts may be narrated as under : The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company carries on the business of manufactureand sale of commercial plywood, sawn timber, railway sleepers and other allied products. The factory of the petitioner-company is situated at Naginimara in the District of Mon, Nagaland.3. The petitioner-company is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. Notice dated March 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. All the writ petitions raise common questions of law and are based on the same factual matrix and as such as agreed to are taken up for hearing together and this judgment shall cover all of them. 2. The four petitioners, residents of Imphal and carrying on business at Imphal and belonging to the same family, along with the four others, residents of Calcutta, claimed to have purchased a lottery ticket worth Rs. 5 of the Government of Nagaland. It is claimed that they were the joint purchasers of the ticket and were entitled to the prize money equally. The draw was held on October 31, 1983, and the ticket won the first prize of rupees one crore. The four other persons are : (i) Md. Ayub, (ii) Md. Anwar, (iii) Md. Elyas and (iv) Md. Abhas, all of 4, Achambit Show Road, Calcutta-22. 3. Claim was made for the share of each and accordingly it was paid by deducting tax at the source from individual claims and the necessary certificate of deduction was given in 1984. 4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. These cases raise the question of legality, validity and constitutionality of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and other actions related to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati constituted under the Act ('Tribunal' hereinafter). 2. In all 350 cases were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati and out of such proceedings 211 writ petitions were filed before this court and stay was granted in those cases. There are some cases five in number arising out of cases filed by co-operative banks for recovery of their dues. The Debt Recovery Tribunal entertained them. The borrowers/ debtors have challenged this action on the ground that the Tribunal does not have the power to decide a suit filed by a co-operative bank, as the definition of 'bank' in the relevant Act does not cover a co-operative bank. These cases are separated from this bunch and they have been heard separately and separate judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated October 30, 1998/November 2, 1998, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and the notice dated December 3/4, 1998, under Section 142 of the Act for the assessment year 1991-92 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range II, Guwahati (for short 'the Assessing Officer'). The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to act according to law and/or to cancel and/or rescind and/or withdraw the impugned notices and for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from giving any effect to the impugned notices.2. The relevant facts as stated in the writ petition are that Namdang Tea Company (India) Limited (for short 'the company'), owned two tea estates, namely, Namdang Tea Estate and Bogapani Tea Estate, in the State of Assam. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. The basic fundamental facts, relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the questions involved in all these twelve appeals are similar and, therefore, all the matters are decided by a common order. 2. To better understand the questions involved and for convenience, we shall refer to the facts in Civil Rule No. 6491 of 1998 (Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Assessment) ), which are, as stated by the petitioner, that Namdang Tea Company (India) Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Guwahati. The said company owned two tea estates, namely, Namdang Tea Estate and Boga-pani Tea Estate, both situated in the State of Assam. The said company was carrying on the business of growing green tea leaves in its own tea gardens and manufacturing black tea out of the said green tea leaves grown by it as well as others and further selling it in India and abroad. Under the scheme of arrangement, the tea business of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J.1. These writ applications involve common questions of law and facts and as such they are taken up together for hearing and this common judgment covers all the writ applications.2. These writ applications have been filled basically with the following prayers:(i) for a declaration that there is no levy of any Central Excise duty on tea in unit containers of 20 Kgs. or more; alternatively a declaration that there is no levy of excise duty on bulk tea removed in unit containers of tea chests or the like containing more than 20 Kgs. of tea;(ii) for a declaration that the order/direction dated 13th October, 1998 is illegal, ultra vires and void;(iii) the impugned show cause notice of different dates issued in the month of November, 1998 being different annexures to different writ application [Annexure-H to WP(C) 3088/99] are illegal, ultra vires and void;(iv) for a declaration to withdraw the show cause notices issued by the authority.3. The order/letter dated 13th October, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. In a federal set up like ours, conflicts between Parliamentary and State enactments are not really uncommon. How to resolve such conflicts is also, by and large, well settled ; but every time, such a conflict is brought before the Courts for resolution, the Courts undertake a massive exercise. This happens not because of any kind of inherent disinclination, on the part of the Courts, to readily resolve such a conflict, but to ensure that in order to resolve such a conflict, the Courts, while interpreting with an open, liberal and modern mindset, the provisions of the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder, remain steadfast to the basic structures of the Constitution and while interpreting the Constitution, howsoever liberally, maintain not only the letter but also spirit of the basic and fundamental concepts of the Constitution. The present Writ petition invites this Court to undertake such an arduous exercise. In order to ensure that the States are not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. Biswas, J.1. The above mentioned writ petitions have been filed before this court by the writ petitioners disputing the legality and validity of the search and seizure operations carried out, by the respondent authorities on different dates. The writ petitions pose common questions of law on identical facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Mr. S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel appeared for the writ petitioners in W. P. (C) Nos. 1552 of 2000, 137 of 2000, 6965 of 2000, 7008 of 2000, 2889 of 2001, 2890 of 2001, 8647 of 2001 and 8648 of 2001 along with Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel and assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel, Mr. P. Upadhaya, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner in W. P. (C). No. 3729 of 2001. The respondent authorities have been represented by Shri R.P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel.3. At the very outset, for convenience, the facts in each case and the stand of the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Our constitutional scheme for governance is based on the rule of law. Absence of arbitrary power, as the Apex Court observed in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. : [1967]65ITR34(SC) , is the first essential of the rule of law. In a system governed by the rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. 'Law has reached its finest moments,' observed Douglas, J, in United States v. Wunderlich, (1951) 342 US 98, 'when it as free man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler ... where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered.' If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. [See S.G. Jaisinghani (supra).2. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under t...
Tag this Judgment!