Court : Guwahati
J.M. Srivastava, J.1. M/s. Hindustan General Insurance Society Ltd., the appellant hereafter the company, is aggrieved by the award dated 7.8.1976 made by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meghalaya, Shillong, making the appellant liable for Rs. 20,000/- out of a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 3, who was made liable for Rs. 30,000/-, has filed a cross-objection.3. Briefly, the facts are that deceased J.C. Mahanta, husband of respondent No. 1, who was Asstt. Agricultural Marketing Officer, on 7.12.1968 at about 5 p.m. while travelling from Rangram to Tura in truck registration No. AST 252, owned by Santosh Kumar Das had met with an accident and as a result sustained grievous injury and had died. The respondent No. 1 claimed compensation.4. The present proforma respondent No. 2 who was earlier the owner of the truck had transferred it to his son, the respondent No. 3.5. The appellant and proforma respondents had contested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. A question of some importance relating to the interpretation of Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', has arisen for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a wealth-tax assessee and some penalties were imposed on him for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 for the default in not filing the returns in time. In computing the penalties, the Wealth-tax Officer applied the law in force both before April 1, 1969, and after April 1, 1969, treating the default as a continuing offence. The Tribunal confirmed the imposition of penalty by its order passed on March 6, 1975. The Tribunal, in affirming the order of imposition of penalties, referred to and relied on its decision in the case of T. K. Roy. The decision in T.K. Roy came to be challenged before this court wherein the view taken by the Tribunal was not upheld. (See [1973] 115 ITR 746). The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. Baghmara is the Head Quarter of a Revenue Sub-Division in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya State. This town is on the Bangladesh border and is situate between International border pillars 1143 and 1158. The town is divided by a P. W.D. Road Along the two sides of the highway there is a bazar. Near the bazar there is Police Station, a Primary School building and residential quarter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The inhabitants of the town speak more than one language and follow different customs and celebrate festivals in their day to day life. 2. On April 14,1987 the Rishi Community of the town were celebrating Charak Puja in the Primary School building. The establishment apprehended disturbance to peace and tranquillity in the town therefore alerted the law enforcement agencies. The Sub-divisional Officer who is also an Executive Magistrate was present in the town. The incharge officer of the Police Station was at the Thana. The Deputy Superintendent of Police arri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.M. Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal by the Union of India through the General Manager, N. F. Railway arises in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff respondent on 27-9-67 booked a consignment of artificial silk ready made garments in three packages at Sealdah on the Eastern Railway for carriage to Tangla on the N. F. Railway. The consignment was not delivered. The plaintiff suffered loss of Rs. 24,760.15 P. The plaintiff served notice and filed the suit on 3-6-69. The appellant defendants resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the consignment comprised of 'silk' of a value of more than Rs. 500/-, but was not so declared and the required percentage under Section 77B of the Indian Railways Act (hereinafter the Act) was not paid and hence the defendants were not liable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for loss of profits. 3. The following issues were framed : -- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G.M. Lodha, C.J. 1. In this bunch of revision petitions, an important question relating to interpretation of Section 7 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, for short 'Act of 1986', has been referred to this Bench by a single Bench. The order dt. 11-11-87 passed in one such Criminal Revision, viz., Criminal Revision No. 112/87 by the learned Judge runs as follows : -- 'A question of great importance in so far as divorced Muslim Women are concerned has arisen in these cases. The point for consideration is whether the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, shall have application when a divorced woman approaches the Court of a Magistrate for execution of the final order already passed in her favour under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. For this purpose, it would be required to be seen whether Section 7 of the aforesaid Act shall have application atthe stage of execution of the final order passed, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Saikia, C.J. 1. The decree nisi dt. 11-11-87 passed by the District Judge, Dibrugarh under Section 10, Divorce Act, 1869, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', has come up for confirmation in this reference under Section 17 of the Act. 2. The petitioner sued for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. Examining herself as witness 1, she deposed that she was married to the respondent Anil Sarkar on 6-12-79 at Dibrugarh Christ Church as both of them were Christians. Ext. 1 was their marriage certificate. After marriage they lived conjugal life at Moran but had no issue. Since about 3 months after the marriage the respondent showed indifference towards her, at the same time having affairs with other women and when her protests proved to be useless she went to her mother's house. When her husband used to be with other womenand when she objected her husband threw things at her and behaved very rudely in presence of her daughter by her pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Saikia, C.J. 1. The Senapati District of Manipur, hereinafter referred to as the 'the district, having been declared as a disturbed area under Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', alleging infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1), 21, 22, 23, 25 as well as other constitutional and legal rights of the residents of the district, after some members of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland attacked the Assam Rifles Post at Qinam village and made off with some arms and ammunitions, and in course of the subsequent combing operations carried out by the armed forces, taking over the administration of the district in purported exercise of powers given under the Act, the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) as petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks, inter alia, a declaration that Section 6 of the Act is unconstitutional and void; a writ of certior...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Hansaria, J. 1. Forests are part of our national wealth. Their contributions are varied. They not only provide fuel and other inputs for various industrial and commercial activities but serve some other needs of human society also. They contribute in a significant way to preserve the ecological balance whose growing importance is being realised day by day. The contribution of forests and trees in preventing soil erosion and flood is well-known. The flora and fauna of a country are largely dependent upon them. They shelter and protect agriculture and influence local climatic extremes. They ensure clear water supply and prevent pollution. They are essential components of attractive landscapes and are becoming important for urban population of industrial countries as a source of recreational facilities. But when there is a rapid growth of population the forests become easy victim as the growth in population demands more land for settlement. Even so, a balance has to be struck between th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lahiri, J. 1. Caveat Litigants --Litigants Beware Thou shalt suffer for thy sin! The respondent was happy as the tiny appeal pended before this Court. He was never up and doing, did not ask for expeditioushearing of the appeal Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act dispensing the formalities of the preparation of the paper book nor did he pray for early hearing. Now the respondent is bound to suffer under any circumstances, no matter whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed. Now, 'Judicial Justice' has struck him in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576, the respondent is to pay enhanced solatium @ 30% of the market value and redoubled interest @ 15% per annum in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. So, the delay is bound to enburden the respondent but the ultimate sufferers are the little Indians, as the respondent shall pay from the people's exchequer! Insof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Das, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clauses 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the First Appeal No. 57/69 of the appellant. The appellant was the defendant in Original Title Suit No. 22/65 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, a suit instituted by the present respondent for realisation of an amount of Rs. 19,800/- on account of a loan against a mortgage deed which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.2. It is not necessary to narrate the plaintiff's case in details as the learned Single Judge has narrated the case of the plaintiff and the defendant respective as set out in the pleadings. However, to get the grip of the background and to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it would be convenient to put respectively cases of the parties in brief :The plaintiffs case is that the defendant No. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 24-5-57 from the plaintiff mortga...
Tag this Judgment!