Court : Guwahati
SARJOO PROSAD, C.J. - These references under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (Act XI of 1922 as amended up to date) raise an important and interesting question of law, namely, "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the receipts from the sale of sal trees can be said to be agricultural income under Section 2(1) and are exempt from taxation under Section 4(3) (viii) of the Income-tax Act".The relevant facts leading to this reference, as found in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal, are that the applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Jyotsna Nath Chowdhury, Kamal Krishna Chowdhury, and Birendra Narayan Chowdhury, are some of the co-sharers of a zamindary property known as Mechpara Estate. Applicant No. 4, Jyotirindra Narayana Sinha Chowdhury, who is since dead and in whose place his heirs have been substituted before this Court, was a co-sharer in another zamindary called Parbatjoar Estate, whereas the applicants in items Nos. 5 to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Deka, J. 1. This is a Rule obtained by the petitioner-Maidhan Das Agarwalla on a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the allegation that the orders passed by Mr. Ram Bhadra Medhi, Special Judge, Gauhati on 1-4-53 and subsequent thereto in Special Case No. 1 of 1952 were without jurisdiction. 2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows:--On the 3-3-1952, the petitioner Maidhan Das Agarwalla filed a complaint in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Goalpara against Sri Charn Barua, Opposite Party No. 2 alleging that the accused Sri Charan Barua While posted as the Circle Inspector of Police at Kokrajar within the District of Goalpara received bribes and attempted extortion of money from the complainant who is a partner of a rice mill at Fakiragram and of a firm trading under the name--Agarwalla and Co. at Fakiragram within the Goalpara district. The learned District Magistrate on receiving this complaint held a preliminary enquir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. CIVIL REVISION NO. 119 OF 1952 1. The petitioner in this case instituted Money Suit No. 50 of 1949 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Dhubri for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,210/8/-as compensation for loss on account of certain goods booked at Amingaon Railway Station. The Union of India was made, a party defendant to the suit as the owner of tha Assam Railway to which the goods were consigned. 2. The plaintiff's case was that one, Haripada Saha, an employee of the plaintiff who is also a party defendant to the suit, had purchased 125 pairs of 'saris' and 11 pairs of 'dhotis' on behalf of the plaintiff from a Marwar firm at Gauhati for a sum of Rs. 2,073/-. He packed the cloth in gunny bags and booked them at the Amingaoa Railway Station, as per Bill of Lading, Ex. 1. The goods were kept in charge of the Guard of tha train concerned and they were to be delivered to the petitioner at Sapat-gram, but no delivery was made. Thereafter the petitioner se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The questions involved in this appeal are: (1) whether there was a cause of action for the suit; and (2) whether the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. was adequate and valid. The point whether such a notice was actually served upon the defendant does not at present arise. These questions were taken up at a preliminary stage and answered against the plaintiff by the learned District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, who dismissed the suit; and hence the present appeal. 2. In the action, the plaintiff sued for declaration that a certain Bill, which subsequently became an Act, was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature, and that it offended against the provisionsof Section 299, Government of India Act, 1935, and alsothat in any event the bill in question did not applyto the Estate of the plaintiff which was held undera special contract with the Government of India.The Province of Assam was a party defendant tothe suit actually came to be instituted on 28-11-1949. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a petition of the Assam Company Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By this petition, Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition, have been applied for. A Rule was issued on this petition to the opposite parties to show cause why the impugned orders should not be quashed. 2. The facts stated in the petition are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the Cherideo Purbut Tea Estate. In 1947, the undeveloped lands included in the Tea Estate were brought under cultivation in furtherance of the Grow More Food Scheme of the Provincial Government. In 1950, an area covering about 400 acres of undeveloped lands was requisitioned by the Government of Assam under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act 25 of 1948). This area has not yet been allotted, settled or otherwise utilised by the Government for the purposes of the Act. On 15-10-51, the S. D. O., Sibsagar, passed an order requisitioning another ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Deka, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or writs of the nature of Mandamus and Prohibition on the five opposite parties of whom opposite party No. 1 is the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur, No. 2 Municipal Board of Dibrugarh, No. 3 the present lessee, No. 4 an unsuccessful bidder and No. 5, the State of Assam. The petition is on behalf of one Mahboob Khan who claims to be the lessee of a municipal market within the municipality of Dibrugarh for the year 1952-53 and his allegation is that the Deputy Commissioner by an illegal order restrained him from obtaining the lease and the Government of Assam have affirmed that order. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: On 26-3-1952, the Chairman of the Dibrugarh Municipal Board with a sub-committee of the said Board put up to auction the settlement of the New Market for the year 1952-53 that is the right to collect tolls for the said period and Mahboob Khan was the highest bidder at the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, from the State of Assam. It arises out of a proceeding under Section 16, Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947, as amended. The proceeding was initiated by complaint of the Excise Inspector dated 16-8-1948. The learned Magistrate (first class at Tezpur) found that Judhabir Chetri, Opposite Party was a smuggler of opium by habit and also its seller and stockist and on 21-11-1949 ordered his externment from the Province of Assam for a period of 18 months. 2. An appeal was preferred against this order on 7-12-49. The appeal was allowed and the order of the trial Magistrate was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge L.A.D. 3. The State of Assam has invoked the powers of superintendence that this Court is invested with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a view to obtaining a reversal of the appellate, and the restoration of the original order. 4. Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, C.J.1. This is an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus under the provisions of Article 236, Constitution of India, in a case in which the petitioner, Prabhat Malla Barooah, is being prosecuted under Section 17(1), Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 14 of 1908), in the Court of a Magistrate at Nalbari. Mr. Barua for the petitioner demands the release of the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) That the petitioner, after his arrest by the Police, was not produced before a Court, but before a Magistrate who was not then sitting as a Court. (2) That the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate only on the occasion of the first remand, but not on any subsequent occasion. (3) That Sections 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act offend the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c), Constitution of India, and are, therefore, void; that in any case, the provisions of Sections 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, are not reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a petition by one Kishorilal Bahati under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against an order of detention, dated 24-2-51, passed against him under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV of 1950) as amended by Act IV of 1951, by the District Magistrate, Sibsagar. The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner are these:I. That on 6-2-51 Md. Sarif Ulla, Prof. Agriculture College, Borbheta went to your shop to purchase yarn, but you refused to give the yarn saying that you had no stock.2. That on 7-2-51 Jogesh Chandra Charkravarty of Jorhat town purchased a pair of 10 yds. Dhuti from your shop @ Rs. 20/- for which you refused to issue any cash memo. The ex-mill rate of the pair of dhuti was 7-3-3 pies plus the excise duty -/5/9 pies.3. That on 8-2-51 Narayan Sarma, B. L. of Jorhat town went to you and wanted to buy textile dhuti, but you did not give him dhuti saying that you had no dhuti in your stock.4. That ...
Tag this Judgment!