Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of prohibition directing the opposite party No. 1, the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, Gauhati, not to proceed with the adjudication of the dispute referred to it by the Government of Assam under the Notification dated 31-5-1957 and the corrigendum thereto being No. GIR. 361/55/11/72. The validity of the above notification issued by the Government of Assam under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been assailed. In the year 1952 the petitioner who is the owner of Rosekandy Tea Estate in Cachar closed down its gardens and terminated the services of its employees. On 24-2-1956 the Government of Assam by its Notification No. GIR. 361/55 (hereinafter referred to as the first reference) referred for adjudication to Sri R. Hazarika, Member of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, the industrial dispute which is alleged to have arisen between the management including the gardens own-eel b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
MEHROTRA, J. - This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for - (a) a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents to withdraw, cancel or forbear from giving effect to the notices issued against the applicant under section 46 (5A) of the Income-tax Act; (b) a writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to send for the records of the case and the proceedings be thereafter quashed; (c) a writ of prohibition calling upon the respondents to cancel or to forbear from giving effect to or in any way taking any steps in respect of the notices issued under section 46 (5A) of the Income-tax Act.The petitioner carries on business and is regularly assessed to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the Act. Under section 5 (4) of this Taxation on Income (Investigation Commissioner) Act, 1947, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Income-tax Investigation Commission. An application was then made under section 8A of the said Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Mehrotra, J. 1. The petitioner firm is a dealer registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act. 1947. For the return period ending on 30-9-1956, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax of Rs. 1.266 and odd by the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati. An appeal was filed on 7-2-57 against his order dated 4-1-57 under Section 30 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. The petitioner under protest affixed a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10/- to the Memorandum of appeal, as required by the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950: but paid no fee as required under Rule 74 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947.It is contended by the assessee that Rule 74 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires and consequently no fee could be demanded from it under the said rule. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes rejected the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 30 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, hereinafter called the rules, by his order dated 3-6-57. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The common question, which we have to decide in these applications is about the constitutional validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (Assam Act I of 1957), which came into force on 15-2-1938 and received the assent of the President on 7-12-1956. 2. The attack on the legislation is directed on various grounds. It is urged : that the impugned Act is not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, as it is not covered by any of the items in either the State or the Concurrent Legislative list given in the Constitution of India; that it purports to acquire private property of individuals without any public purpose and without providing for adequate payment of compensation and puts a limitation on the right to acquire, hold or dispose of property and is, therefore, hit by Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution; that the provisions in regard to payment of compensation are merely illusory and the legislation is a colourab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Nowgong. The appellant Biresh Misra (hereinafter called the appellant), a voter of Silchar West Constituency stood as a candidate for the election for the Assam Legislative Assembly from Lumding constituency as the nominee of the Communist Party of India. The respondent No. 1--Ram Nath Sarma (hereinafter called the respondent) was a candidate nominated by the Indian National Congress to contest for the aforesaid constituency. The respondent is also the Chairman of the Local Board of Nowgong and the other respondents were also the candidates for the said constituency. Abdul Mosabir contested as an independent candidate and the other respondents represented various other parties. Lumding constituency is also included as a part in the Loksabha constituency of the district of Nowgong and Sri Liladhar Kataki was the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus for quashing the order of the Labour Court dated 26-4-1958, and for preventing the respondent, the State of Assam from taking any action under its notification dated 10-4-1958, whereby it purported to cancel a notification of an earlier date, dated 28-11-1957, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947), as amended (hereinafter called the Act). 2. It appears that the petitioner was serving as a head clerk in the Martycherra Tea Estate, which is also a respondent to this application represented by its management. For reasons to which it is not necessary to refer, he was dismissed from service by the Manager of the Tea Estate on 1-3-1955. An attempt was made to effect conciliation of the dispute, which followed the dismissal of the petitioner, between the Union to which the petitioner belonged and the Tea Estate in questionbut it proved ineffective and the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 32, Sub-section (3), of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Assam Act XVII of 1947) by the Member, Sales Tax Board, Assam, Shillong, by which the following questions of law have been referred to us for decision:-(1) Was reliance on Section 23(2) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, in order in applying Section 2 (12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?(2) Whether the delivery of wooden sleepers at the different railway stations within the State of Assam for despatch to stations outside the State of Assam was complete at different railway stations in the State of Assam and constituted a 'sale' for the purpose of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Assam Act XVII of 1947) and for that matter was the turnover therefrom taxable (3) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessments and levy of sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947) were illegal under Article 286(1)(a) and/or Article 286(2) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. This is a some what unusual application under Section 561-A of the Cr. P. Code for quashing the proceedings under Section 494 IPO that are going against the applicant and some others in the court of the Magistrate, at the instance of his first wife the complainant,2. It is an admitted fact that the complainant Thokcho Ningol Haisnam Ongbi Bhani Devi was legally married to the applicant, the main accused, in 1952. The applicant, who is an Assistant Engineer in the PWD of the Manipur Administration, again married in 1956, Thounaojam Ningol Haisnam Ongbi Ibechaobi Devi, one of the accused in the criminal case, which led to the institution of the above-mentioned prosecution.According to the applicant, he had divorced the complainant according to the prevailing custom in 1954 and if that is proved, and found to be a valid divorce, then admittedly he committed no offence when he married the other lady in 1956. I mention it incidentally only, but we are not concerned with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for appropriate writs against the opposite parties, preventing them from enforcing the provisions of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Assam Act XVII of 1947, as amended) against the petitioner, and compelling him to get himself registered as a 'dealer' and to submit returns. The petitioner is the holder of what is known as the Bijni Raj Estate.2. Within the ambit of his zamindari, there are sal forests, which are divided into coupes, and standing sal trees are settled every year in different coupes and lots by auction--usually to the highest bidder. The settlement-holders are permitted to fell the sal trees and market them by sawing and other processes, for sale. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, issued a notice on the petitioner under section 10 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, on 14th September, 1953, requiring him to apply for registration as a 'dealer' under the said Act, or to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Datta, J.1. Forty persons were committed to the Court of Session and were tried for charges punishable under Sections 147, 395 and 436 read with Section 149 of the IPC One of them died during the trial, while twenty were acquitted. The remaining nineteen who have preferred these appeals were convicted. There were as many as 51 charges against each of these accused persons, but they were convicted for some of them only, details of which will appear while considering the case against each appellant separately. The punishments were made to run concurrently and ranged from R. I. for 2 years to 10 years.2. Appellants Rehman Ulla, Manik Miah, Tabai Ulla and Darash Miah alias Darash Master preferred appeals from the Jail which were registered respectively as Criminal appeals Nos. 17, 19, 21 and 23 of 1956. A joint appeal was also filed on their behalf and 4 other appellants namely, (i) Abdul Ilamid alias Hamid Mia, (ii) Rahaman Khan, (iii) Chandu Mia and (iv) Wahabulla through Counsel which ...
Tag this Judgment!