Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The subject-matter of the writ petition, which has given rise to the present appeal, is the writ petitioner's dismissal from service, under Section 20 of the Army Act, 1950, on the ground that the writ petitioner, a member of the Assam Rifles, which is a paramilitary force, had, while functioning as a Second-in-Command of a Road Opening Patrol Party, shown cowardice by running away from the place, where the said patrol party was ambushed, leaving behind the dead-bodies of the rifle-men of his battalion, his act of cowardice helped the insurgents to take away weapons and ammunitions from the said dead bodies.2. The essential facts and materials stages, which have led to the present appeal, may, in brief, be set out as follows:(i) On 9th or 10th November, 1994, 16th Maratha Light Infantry was directed to provide road opening patrol on Morioni-Mukokchang road near Desai bridge. This patrol party was to guard the road, as an advance party, in order to ensure safe passage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The respondent No. 1 herein is an association of contractors and suppliers of the Public Works Department, Government of Nagaland. The respondent, as writ petitioner, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP (C) No. 37(K)/2007, its case being, in brief, thus, the petitioner is a guild of contractors and suppliers based at Dimapur and carries construction work and supplies to the establishment of Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing Division), Nagaland. As many as 329 members of the petitioner association carried out the contract works and made supplies to the said establishment. In course of time, as much as Rs. 91,14,847 fell due for payment to the said 329 members of the petitioner association. Despite repeated demands raised by the petitioner association, no payment has been made by the department concerned. As members of the petitioner association had borrowed money, on interest, from various sources, non-payment of bills have been causing great hardship to the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By the present revision petition, the petitioner, who is defendant in Money Suit No. 73/2003, has challenged the legality of the order dated 19.02.2005, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 70/2004 (Arising Out of Money Suit No. 73/2003 aforementioned) by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the defendant-petitioner's application, made under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking to get referred the dispute, raised in the said suit, to arbitration.2. The moot question, which has been raised in the present revision, is this--When existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement arrived at between the parties to a suit is admitted, whether the applicability of the arbitration clause to the dispute, raised in the suit, is determinable by the arbitrator in terms of the relevant arbitration agreement or is it for the civil court to decide as to whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. The present second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree 2.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Mangaldoi in Title Suit No. 11 of 1987 had been admitted for hearing on the substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the learned courts below were justified in holding that Ext. 4 the sale deed was not proved, merely because the executant of the deed was not examined?(ii) Whether the learned courts below failed to consider some relevant materials such as Ext.2, Ext.-5 and whether non-consideration of such material has vitiated the judgments?(iii) Whether the learned trial court was justified to brush aside the examination commissioner's report by observing that it was incomplete and biased?2. Heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 2007(3)GLT199
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. The present second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree 2.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Mangaldoi in Title Suit No. 11 of 1987 had been admitted for hearing on the substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the learned courts below were justified in holding that Ext. 4 the sale deed was not proved, merely because the executant of the deed was not examined?(ii) Whether the learned courts below failed to consider some relevant materials such as Ext.2, Ext.-5 and whether non-consideration of such material has vitiated the judgments?(iii) Whether the learned trial court was justified to brush aside the examination commissioner's report by observing that it was incomplete and biased?2. Heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior couns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Gau.)426
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned CIT, Guwahati, dt. 8th May, 2006 under Section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee has objected to registration of application under Section 12A filed on 30th March, 2004 seeking registration with effect from the financial year 2001-02 relevant to the asst. yr. 2002-03 as per his order dt. 1st/13th Oct., 2004. It has been contended that there was nothing in the order dt. 1st/13th Oct., 2004 in conformity with Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the IT Act to show that the prayer of the assessee for registration with effect from earlier year as discussed above was considered by the learned CIT. The observation of the learned CIT that he could not allow registration under Section 12AA with effect from the asst. yr. 2002-03 because it would amount to two orders under Section 12AA in the same case has also been challenged. It has thus been contended that the learned CIT erred in law and in fact in not registering the appellant society under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. In this appeal there is difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench. Therefore, the following question is referred to the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Under Section 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961, for the opinion of the Third Member. The question framed is as under: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Ld. CIT had erred in rejecting the application of the assessee for grant of registration Under Section 12A of the Act for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 ?(Hemant Sausarkar) (B.R. Kaushik)JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati, dated 08-05-2006 Under Section 12AA of the I.T.Act, 1961.2. The assessee has objected to registration of application Under Section 12A filed on 30-03-2004 seeking registration with effect from the financial year 2001-2002 relevant to the assessment year 2002-2003 as per his order dated 01-10-2004. It has been c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The appellants/accused of this appeal is challenging the judgment and order dated 12-9-2001 and the order for sentence dated 15-9-2001 passed in S.T. 22 (WT/K) 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai convicting the appellants/ accused under Section 364 read with Section 34, I.P.C. sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each I.D. to suffer further R.I. for 3 months and under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-each I.D., to suffer further R.I. for 5 months and the sentences will run concurrently.2. The golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal Jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. With the help of the present application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff has challenged the order, dated 16.2.2006, passed, in Title Suit No. 01/99, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Tezpur, whereby the learned Court below has rejected, inter alia, the plaintiff-petitioner's prayer for amendment of her plaint.2. I have heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned Senior counsel, for the plaintiff-petitioner, and Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants-respondents.3. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the present writ application, may be set out as follows:(i) The petitioner's case, as plaintiff, in Title Suit No. 1/99, is, in brief, thus: The plaintiff, in terms of a sale deed, dated 22.09.94, which was registered, on 28.9.2004, at the office of Tezpur Sub-Registrar, purchased, in consideration of Rs. 35,000/- from M/s. Bhomra Brothers, a partnership firm, 3 (three) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. The validity of the proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereafter referred to as the Wages Act) as well as that under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (hereafter referred to as the Recovery Act) before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, respondent No. 2 and the Certificate Officer, Tinsukia, respondent No. 3 respectively, orders passed therein and the eventual auction sale of the petitioner's land pursuant thereto, constitute the subject matter of assailment in the instant petition. This Court by order dated 14.9.2004 while issuing notice of motion had in the interim directed the private respondents not to alter the features of the land to involved and the maintain the status quo thereof. The disbursement of the sale proceeds was also kept in abeyance.2. I have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner assisted by Mr. V.K. Bhatra, Advocate, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Additional Sr. Government Advocate for the official respondents, ...
Tag this Judgment!