Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court in an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and order of the Family Court disposing of the application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., 1973 is akin to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.2. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. R. K. Nokulsana Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. K. Milan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2, Shri Akham Joykumar Singh.3. The short fact which gives rise to the filing of the present application is that petitioner No. 1, Shri Akham Ibodi Singh, aged about 74 years and petitioner No. 2, Smt. Akham (Ongbi) Chaobi Devi, aged about 71 years are the parents of the respondents. The respondent No. 1, Shri Akham Biradhwaja Singh is the eldest son of the petitioners and he was educated up to M.Sc. (Phys...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a petition by one Kishorilal Bahati under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against an order of detention, dated 24-2-51, passed against him under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV of 1950) as amended by Act IV of 1951, by the District Magistrate, Sibsagar. The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner are these:I. That on 6-2-51 Md. Sarif Ulla, Prof. Agriculture College, Borbheta went to your shop to purchase yarn, but you refused to give the yarn saying that you had no stock.2. That on 7-2-51 Jogesh Chandra Charkravarty of Jorhat town purchased a pair of 10 yds. Dhuti from your shop @ Rs. 20/- for which you refused to issue any cash memo. The ex-mill rate of the pair of dhuti was 7-3-3 pies plus the excise duty -/5/9 pies.3. That on 8-2-51 Narayan Sarma, B. L. of Jorhat town went to you and wanted to buy textile dhuti, but you did not give him dhuti saying that you had no dhuti in your stock.4. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2009)24VST481(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner herein, which is a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has been executing various works at Kameng Hydro Electric Project, in the district of West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner is also involved in the business of construction of infrastructure facilities like dams, tunnels, powerhouse, etc., all over the country. Pursuant to the work orders, issued by North East Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO), in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has been executing various civil works. The petitioner is a 'registered dealer' under the Arunachal Pradesh Goods Tax Act, 2005, and possesses a certificate of registration issued, in this regard, by the appropriate authority.2. The Arunachal Pradesh Goods Tax Act, 2005 (in short, 'the Act of 2005') has been enacted with the object of levying consumption tax, on goods consumed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, through a combination of tax on entry of goods into the local area as def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The material facts, which have given rise to these two writ petitions, are thus : The writ petitioners are works contractors and engaged in civil construction works. In the course of execution of the works contract, the petitioners use various goods including the goods, which stand declared as goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and known as declared goods. When the Superintendent of Taxes informed the petitioners that all goods including declared goods, used in execution of works contract, shall, in terms of Schedule V to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, 'the Assam VAT Act'), be subject to levy of value added tax (in short, 'the VAT') at 12.5 per cent, the petitioners disputed the assertion that the declared goods too, used in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. In these Letters Patent Appeals which are pending before this court, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that in view of the amended provisions of law contained in Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, these Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable, 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and the question raised is disposed of by this common Order. 3. As the facts are not in dispute in this preliminary objection, we will not revert to the same and we propose to dispose of the matter on the point raised before us. The only factual aspect involved is that all these Letters Patent Appeals were filed and pending before this court as on 1.7.2002, the date on which the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 were made effective or operative. 4. Section 100A as substituted by the above referred amendment Acts reads as follows : '100A. No further appeal in cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandkumar Singh, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant against the judgment dated 21-10-1999 passed in S. T. Case No. 92/94/8/94/9 of 1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East (Shri M. Binoykumar Singh, as he then was) wherein it has been held that the appellant/accused guilty and convicted him Under Section 302, IPC, and on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant/accused was awarded life imprisonment. The learned trial Court passed his judgment dated 21-10-1999 basing primarily upon the circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession of the appellant./ accused. The learned trial Court was also of the firm opinion in passing the judgment dated 21-10-1999 that the death of Shri L. Mohendro Singh (deceased/victim) was homicidal and manner in which injury was inflicted was due to commission of crime of murder within the meaning of Section 300, IPC not falling under any of exceptions specified therein.2. Heard Mr. N. Kerani Singh, le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. Biswas, J.1. Received an application filed under Sections 8, 9 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Seen the application and certified copy of the arbitration agreement. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Register an Arbitration Misc. Case under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Seen also the prayer submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act for maintenance of status-quo by way of interim injunction as regards possession of the petitioner's business at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner. On this point, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a very recent decision of the Apex Court AIR 1999 SC 565. It appears that for ends of justice status-quo as regards petitioner's possession at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport has to be maintained. Hence, I grant under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.B. Deb, J. 1. The order of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala passed under Sub-section (5) of Section 52A of Indian Forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, 1986 upholding the order of confiscation of the vehicle (Lorry) belonging to the petitioner passed by the authorized officer (Divisional Forest Officer) in exercise of power under Sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the said Act, has been put under challenge in this writ petition.2. The facts leading to the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be summarised thus : The Vehicle bearing No. AXA - 3587 belonging to the petitioner was seized by the authorized officials on 10.5.1993 while it was carrying some wooden timbers without any permit on Assam Agartala Road. The petitioner received two successive notices dated 12th & 17th July, 1993 issued by the authorized officer (Divisional Forest Officer, Teliamura) requiring him to show cause as to why the said vehicle should not be confiscated as...
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
1. The above mentioned two writ appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 15-6-07, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 114 of 2000 and W. P. (C) No. 355 of 2006. The short question, involved in the said writ petitions, was whether the item pea gravel is a taxable item, under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, TST Act ) as well as the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, TVAT Act ) or not. The learned Single Judge, by the said common judgment and order, disposed of the writ petitions, deciding thereby that the item pea gravel is a taxable item under the TST Act with effect from 28-2-2000 i. e after the insertion of the word gravel , by the Tripura Sales Tax (8th Amendment) Act, 2000, in the schedule of the chargeable items, attached to the Act and that the said item is not a taxable item under the TVAT Act, 2004. 2. Challenging the decision, reached in W. P. (C) No. 114 of 2000, that pea gravel is a taxable item, under ...
Tag this Judgment!