Court : Guwahati
N. Ibotombi Singh, J. 1. By our short order dated 22-2-1983, we directed the release of the detenus, Shri prafulla Kumar Mahnnta and Shri Bhrigu Kumar Phukan, whose detention under the National Security Act, 1980, was challenged in these two writ petitions. We now proceed to state our reasons.2. As similar questions of fact and law arise in these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. they are disposed of by this common judgment.The detenu, Sri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, and detenu, Shri Bhrigu Kumar Phukan are President and General Secretary respectively of the All Assam Students Union (briefly AASU) Both of them are students of University Law College; Gauhati. They came back from New Delhi to Gauhati on 7-1-1983 after the tripartiate talk to find out solution on the foreigners' issue in Assam. They were arrested at the Borjhar Air Port, Gauhati on 7-1-1983. in pursuance of the separate order dated 6-1-1983 made by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, under Sub-section (2) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Hansaria, J.1. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, Priyokumar Singh, had approached this Court initially in its writ jurisdiction feeling aggrieved at the-withdrawal of electrical energy which he was enjoying since long. Priyokumar Singh had initially installed an Atta Mill in 1952. In 1967, he was given a licence to carry on the rice milling operation. Subsequently, in 1970, he was registered as a consumer of 20 H. P. A call was given in 1971 by the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur, to modernise the rire milling equipments, and Priyokumar Singh was one such person to respond to the call and he, by discarding conventional types of machineries, installed a modern rice mill. This modern type of mill needed 45 H. P. to run it properly. Prayer for additional 15 H. P. only was, however, granted and Priyokumar Singh deposited the necessary money in 1973. So the mill-owner got 35 H. P. in all. The Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department, however, wro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Pathak, Actg. C.J. 1. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, had been referred to this court for decision on the following question; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 18(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was procedural in nature and so the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not necessary for levying penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65 after its amendment by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 ?' 2. This reference relates to assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65. The following chart shows the details relating to the various assessment years :Assessment yearThe due date for filing the returnThe date on which the return was filedDelay in complete monthsThe date on which the penalty was leviedThe amount of penalt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lahiri, J. 1. This is an application Under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1963, for short 'the Act'. Based on the following premises, Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel has propounded that Section 5 of 'the Act' is not applicable in writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules and the application merits summary rejection :-- (I) The set of Rules framed by the High Court and styled as 'The Rules of the Gauhati High Court', for short 'the Rules', is not a law as it has not been made by the Legislature; (II) Assuming that it is a 'Law' it does not fall within the ambit of 'special law' referred in Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1953; (III) Rule 2 of 'the Rules' has not only created the right of writ appeal against the decision of a single Judge but it has also prescribed the period of limitation as 30 days which is the same as prescribed in Article 117 of 'the Act' for appeals to the High Court from the same Court Therefore. Rule 2 does not prescribe a per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K. Lahiri, J.1. This Criminal Reference arises out of a letter received from the Sessions Judge, Shillong. Meghalaya wherein the learned Judge apologetically pointed out that at the hearing of Criminal Misc. Case No. 67 of 1978 U, Saul Dkhar v. State of Meghalaya on 30-3-79 by the Full Bench of this Court (since reported in 1979 Cri LJ 1418): (AIR 1979 NOC 144) the amendment made to Section 326 of the Cr. P. C, 1973 by Act 45 of 1978 was not brought to the notice of the Court and accordingly the Court held that 'in a Sessions trial for offence of murder in the tribal areas of Meghalaya, the Deputy Commissioner and/or Additional D. C. cannot act on the evidence recorded by their predecessors.' The learned Sessions Judge indirectly pointed out that the trio decedent of the Full Bench decision would cause great hardship and injury to the litigants, as the officers are continuously transferred within a short span of time and in most of the cases they are transferred before completion of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K. Lahiri, J. 1. The State has unsettled the settlement of Jaluguti Bazar. The Executive Committee. Morigaon Mahkuma Parishad had settled it with the petitioner for the year 1980-81 (1-7-80 to 30-6-81). By the impugned order D/- 4-10-80 the State awarded the settlement in favour of Respondent No. 4. The petitioner had by that time managed the bazar almost continuously, on due execution of the lease deed and upon payment of Rs. 42,000/- and odd. By virtue of the impugned order Respondent No. 4 could have enjoyed it for a broken period of about 7 months only and he can enjoy it for about 4 months henceforward. The order of unsettlement of the petitioner as well as direct settlement in favour of Respondent No. 4 by the State Government is a composite order which has been Questioned by the petitioner in this writ application. The battle for settlement commenced on 19-6-80 and the field of battle is covered by the Assam Panchayat Rai Act.2. The word 'Panch1' has an ancient flavour; it has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lahiri, J. 1. The assessee had applied for registration. At long last the matter came up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which by its order dated July 1, 1972, allowed registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. Of course, it held, as it was bound to hold, that the assessee was a genuine firm and was entitled to registration. However, the relevant previous year of the assessee, for the assessment year 1963-64, ended on March 31, 1963. Accordingly, the return under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was due on September 30, 1963. A notice under Section 139(2) was served on the assessee which made an application for extension of time up to December 31, 1963. No application was made for further extension of time. A belated return was filed by the assessee on May 28, 1966, declaring an income of Rs. 47,455. The Income-tax Officer, for short, 'the ITO', completed the assessment at Rs. 53,096 which was reduced to Rs. 50,697 by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the judgment dated 2-5-77 of the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, dismissing the petitioner-Society's revision petition under Section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central District, Manipur, by his order dated 17-4-76 allotted to the respondent-Society, namely, Sekmai Khunbi Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd., Registered No. 59 of 1969, 46.29 acres of land under C. S. Dag Nos. 259, 287, 359 and 371 of Village No. 116 within ThoubalSub-division. From that order, the petitioner Society, namely, Nongpok Sekmai Collective Farming Co-operative Society Ltd., Registered No. 11 of 1975-76, filed a revenue revision application under Section 95 of the Act, urging, inter alia, that the petitioner-Society reclaimed and improved the disputed land in 1967 and h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K. N. SAIKIA J. - The statement of the case is : That the assessee is an individual. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, corresponding previous year being 1375 B.S., the ITO added a sum of Rs. 675 being the rent received for the house in holding No. 401. In his order the ITO had not given any reasons or materials for making that addition. The assessee appealed to the AAC and brought to his notice that the assessee was originally the owner of the house property in holding No. 401 which was gifted by him to his wife in the year 1954, and since then the income therefrom was being enjoyed by the wife to the complete exclusion of the assessee. The assessee also claimed that that income had not been included in his total income in any of the preceding assessment years and, therefore, the ITO was not justified in adding it to his income in the assessment year 1969-70, and that too without giving any reasons. The AAC accepted his contention and held that the income from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. The statement of the case is : That the assessee is an individual. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, corresponding previous year being 1375 B.S., the ITO added a sum of Rs. 675 being the rent received for the house in holding No. 401. In his order the ITO had not given any reasons or materials for making that addition. The assessee appealed to the AAC and brought to his notice that the assessee was originally the owner of the house property in holding No. 401 which was gifted by him to his wife in the year 1954, and since then the income therefrom was being enjoyed by the wife to the complete exclusion of the assessee. The assessee also claimed that that income had not been included in his total income in any of the preceding assessment years and, therefore, the ITO was not justified in adding it to his income in the assessment year 1969-70, and that too without giving any reasons. The AAC accepted his contention and held that the income fro...
Tag this Judgment!