Court : Guwahati
Mehrotra, C.J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called ' the Act '), for opinion : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and upon a true interpretation of the provisions of the second proviso to Section 34(3), the assessment for the year 1955-56 on the applicant Hindu undivided family made on February 6, 1961, pursuant to an order under Section 27 cancelling the assessment of Sri S. M. Saharia, as an individual, was barred by limitation ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of the terms of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 2,21,702 (gross) and Rs. 3,43,505 (net) were taxable as dividends in the hands of the applicant Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, respectively, when the shares were registered in the na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
NAYUDU J.- These civil rules have been heard together as they involve a common question of constitutional law, namely, whether section 37(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act è(Act XI of 1922), infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India in articles 14 and 19(r)(f) and (g) thereof.Before this question is taken up for consideration, it would be useful and necessary that the facts alleged in the petitions are briefly set out.In Civil Rule 195 of 1962, the petitioner is one Senairam Doongarmall Agency (Private) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Tinsukia, in the Lakhimpur district, of the State of Assam. Shri K.E.Johnson, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, is impleaded as the first respondent, apparently in his personal capacity. The second respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, having his office at Shillong, the headquarters of the State of Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, C.J.1. These two appeals raise common questions and can be disposed, of by one judgment. Both the appeals are against the accrual passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Silchar.2. Respondent Jamaluddin is the husband Of Musst. Aburunnessa Bibi who is the respondent in the other appeal. Jamaluddin was prosecuted Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The charge against him was that he left India in the year 1950 and returned sometime in 1954 under ,a Pakistan passport. He overstayed in India and thus committed breach of the passport rules. Notice was given to him1 in 1958 by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar to leave India within sometime specified in the nice. He failed to leave the limits of the Cachar district' within the time specified in the notice. Thereafter he was prosecuted Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The Magistrate has come to the conclusion that on the date when he returned to India in the year 1954 he was not a foreigner within the meaning of the For...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, C.J.1. The petitioner U Join Manick Syiem has tiled this petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The proceedings arose before the Additional Deputy Commissioner on a report by the officer-ln-charge of the Cherra police station.The case set up by the opposite parties was that U Debindra Nath Khongsit, one of the Ekhot Dorbaris of the Cherra Seimship was in actual possession of the Laitryngew Office of the Cherra Siemship since the 18th November 1957 under the supervision at first of late Myntri Harrison Dohling and then of U Rose Mohan Roy Myntri.On the 12th November 1960 the persons arrayed as Second party numbering 2 to 10 in the petition betel the Additional Deputy Commissioner, at the instance of second party No. 1 who is the petitioner before this Court, entered into the office building by breaking open the lock on the door at 10-30 A.M. The Darbar Siem of the Cherra Siemship on the 16th November 1937 had decided that U D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner, the Bengal United Tea Company, Ltd., is the owner of a tea estate known as 'Aenakhal Tea Estate' Annada Charan Das, respondent 2, was employed as an assistant medical officer at Old Singalla Division of the Aenakhal Tea Estate. He was dismissed by an order of the petitioner on or about 28 January 1959. On 9 January 1959 it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent 2 absented himself from his duties without leave from 3 p.m. to 4-30 p.m. A preliminary inquiry was held by one O. Carruthera, the manager of the said tea estate, on 12 January 1959, and the respondent 2 is alleged to have shouted at the manager and one V.K. Nanda, assistant manager.2. Thus he was guilty of gross insubordination to the manager. On 13 January 1959 the respondent 2 was asked by the manager to explain in writing within seventy-two hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the charges contained in the letter of that date. The respondent 2 however submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1551
JUDGEMENTG. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of the petitioners who are accused in a trial pending before the Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Division, Gauhati. The case was started against' the petitioners on a complaint had by the complainant opposite party Under Section 198 B of the Cr.PC on the allegation that the petitioners committed the offence of defamation against Sri Moinul Haque Choudbury, Minister to the Government of Assam in charge of Food, Agriculture, Veterinary, Co operative etc. The petitioners were summoned by the Sessions Judge Under Sections 500 and 501, Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 18th July 1959 after examining a number of witnesses. The petitioners are alleged to have published Ext. 2, a sbooklet under the captions 'The Press and Sri Moinul Haque Choudhury' and Ext. 28(1), the editorial under the caption 'To our M. L. As.' published in the 'Shillong Times' dated 3rd Augus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Cachar, Silchar under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction and sentence were confirmed.2. The facts as set out in the judgment of the court below are that on the 26th November 1957 an order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar directing the petitioner to leave the limits of the District of Cachar within one month of the receipt of the order. The order was served on the petitioner on the 1st December 1957. The order purports to have been issued under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act in the exercise of the powers delegated to the Superintendent of Police, Cachar under Section 12 of the Act by the Governor of Assam. The petitioner is described as a Pakistan national in the order. There is no dispute that the order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar and was du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioners Satyendra Kumar Pal and Manir AH have filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the order Of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong dated 17 9 1959 and further for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties the Collector of Central Excise and Land' Customs, Shillong and Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Gauhati Division not to give effect to the order referred to above.2. The facts giving rise to the order impugned are that the Preventive Intelligence Officer, Gauhati on the receipt of information that there were certain goods of illicit origin in the godown of Sri Tolaram Jain searched it on 28 2 1959 on the strength of a search warrant. In the course of the search 43 bags of dry betel nuts weighing 84 Mds. 7 Srs. were found in the godown. Besides this the godown also had 3 1/2 bags of betel nuts and some chests and bags of tea.Sri Tolaram Jain said th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. The Petitioners were convicted Under Sections 380 and 454 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- by the Munsiff Magistrate, Belonia. The conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Tripura. Now they have come up in revision to this Court.2. It is unnecessary to go into the facts in detail in this revision. The Petitioners were said to have wrongfully trespassed into a house belonging to the Complainant-respondent on 16-6-1955 and to have removed his furniture worth about Rs. 250/-. The respondent filed a complaint before the S.D.M. He transferred the case for enquiry to a second class Magistrate one Mr. H. Ghosh who framed the charges Under Sections 380 and 454 IPC and examined 8 prosecution witnesses and questioned the accused Under Section 342 and examined 3 defence witnesses. Then on 23-5-1957 the Magistrate passed an order that as the charge Under Section 354 IPC was triable by a Magistrate o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Mehrotra, J. 1. This Rule was issued on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature quashing the order passed by the Local Board of Barpeta Sub-division and further for a writ of mandamus directing the Barpeta Local Board not to give effect to its order for payment of license fees fixed by the Local Board, Barpeta, hereinafter called the Board, in respect of Kharma Hat owned by the petitioner. The petitioner states that he is the proprietor of Nisf Khiraj land covered by Patta No. 2 at village Ata, Mouza Bhawanipur in the district of Kamrup. In the year 1936 he opened a Hat on the aforesaid land in order to meet the needs of the neighbouring people. After sometime the Hat was settled by public auction with different people who realised the dues from the persons who carried on their business in the said Hat. The petitioner further states that he had to incur huge expenditure for upkeeping and maintaining the H...
Tag this Judgment!