Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. L. Sarat Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Th Ibohal Singh, learned Senior G. A., Manipur. 2. The hearing of the case was concluded on 16. 9. 2010 with a direction to the learned Sr. G. A., Manipur, to submit the relevant file to the Court through the Bench Clerk within three days. No file, as directed by the Court has been submitted despite lapse of two weeks. 3. Facts which are relevant for disposal of this writ petition as ascertained from the records and pleadings of the parties may be noticed as hereunder. 3(i) The petitioner who belongs to Mao Naga tribe of Manipur was appointed as Rifleman No. 8510 in the 8th Bn, Manipur Rifles, vide order dated 18. 11. 87. It is stated that the petitioner was absent from duty for four days with effect from 31. 12. 1989 to 3. 1. 1990 and thereafter he reported for duty on 6. 1. 1990. The petitioner was again absent from duty for a period of seventeen days with effect from 6. 1. 1990 to 22. 1. 1990. The explanation g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. The instant second appeal on remand by the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 5129 of 2001 restoring the case to the file of this Court after setting aside the judgment and order dated 7. 1. 2000 passed in Second Appeal No. 8/94 directing for a fresh decision after framing substantial question of law and accordingly in exercise of power under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for adjudication of the case afresh in presence of the contesting parties viz. ,- (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and(2)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation?2. Before determining the lis between the parties it would be appropriate to refer the provision of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ( Act 1963 for short) along with Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963:Section 31- When cancellation may be ordered- (1)Any person against whom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. The instant second appeal on remand by the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 5129 of 2001 restoring the case to the file of this Court after setting aside the judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 passed in Second Appeal No. 8/94 directing for a fresh decision after framing substantial question of law and accordingly in exercise of power under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for adjudication of the case afresh in presence of the contesting parties viz.,- (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and(2)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation?2.Before determining the lis between the parties it would be appropriate to refer the provision of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ( Act 1963 for short) alongwith Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963:Section 31- When cancellation may be ordered- (1)Any person against whom a wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
01. The appellant puts to challenge the judgment and order dated 22. 05. 2006 rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit (Divorce) No. 36/2001, rejecting her prayer for a decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties and for permanent alimony. 02. We have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant-wife and Mr. N. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent-husband. 03. The pleaded versions of the parties, in brief, would essentially lay the preface for the rival contentions. 04. The appellant has averred of her marriage with the respondent according to Hindu religious rites and customs in the month of November, 1983, where after, they set up their matrimonial home at Sassoni Gaon under Naharkatia Police Station in the district of Dibrugarh. She alleged that subsequent thereto, she was subjected to torture by the respondent on the pretext of insufficient dowry and insisted on her to arrange for more from her parents. The torture mounted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
01. In challenge is the order dated 28. 04. 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Probate Case No. 344/2007, rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for Letter of Administration on the ground that the same being not verified by her, was not in compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 280 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereafter referred to as the Act). 02. I have heard Mr. KK Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. NK Kalita and Mr. A Barman, Advocates for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice on the respondents, none has entered appearance to resist the prayer made herein. 03. The petitioner, though not the executor of the Will involved, initially filed a petition for probate under the aforementioned legal provision and thereafter sought amendment in the averments to condition the same to facilitate issuance of a Letter of Administration instead. The Will and testament involved is one executed on 10. 08. 2006 by Kamal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. By a common judgment and order, dated 06. 01. 2010, three writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 591/2008, 1048/2008 and 2814/2008, were allowed to the extent as were indicated in the said judgment and order. All these three writ petitions arose out of actions, which had been taken by the respondents/authorities concerned on their interpretation of certain notifications, which were issued, from time to time, by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, granting exemption from payment of excise duty and additional duty of excise to certain specific classes of manufacturers, who set up industries in any of the seven North-Eastern States. The writ petitioners had set up their industries under two notifications bearing No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE, both, dated 08. 07. 99, whereunder the Central Government had exempted certain goods, manufactured in the specified areas, in the North-Eastern Region of India, from payment, inter alia, of excise duty or additional duty of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
01. These two appeals carry a challenge to the judgment and order dated 14. 12. 2007, passed in WP(C) No. 4934/2006. Thereby the moderation of the grading of the respondent No. 1 herein in his Annual Confidential Reports (for short hereafter referred to as the ACR) for the period from 01. 04. 2004 to 24. 06. 2004 and 28. 07. 2004 to 17. 02. 2005 from "Outstanding" to "Very good" and "Good" respectively, was interfered with and the State respondents were directed to reassess his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State (hereafter for short referred to as the Department) by treating the remarks of the reviewing authority for the said periods to be the bench mark of appraisal. Further, a direction to effect his promotion, if adjudged fit and eligible from the date of those made pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 28. 07. 2006, was also made. The respondent No. 1, incidentally, was the writ petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. The above mentioned two writ appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 15-6-07, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 114 of 2000 and W. P. (C) No. 355 of 2006. The short question, involved in the said writ petitions, was whether the item pea gravel is a taxable item, under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, TST Act ) as well as the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, TVAT Act ) or not. The learned Single Judge, by the said common judgment and order, disposed of the writ petitions, deciding thereby that the item pea gravel is a taxable item under the TST Act with effect from 28-2-2000 i. e after the insertion of the word gravel , by the Tripura Sales Tax (8th Amendment) Act, 2000, in the schedule of the chargeable items, attached to the Act and that the said item is not a taxable item under the TVAT Act, 2004. 2. Challenging the decision, reached in W. P. (C) No. 114 of 2000, that pea gravel is a taxable item, under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1)This appeal is preferred challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27/4/01 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Title (P) Suit No. 23/99 thereby declining to grant probate of the Will alleged to be executed in favour of the appellant. 2) I have heard Mr. BC Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. S. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. FU Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents. 3) The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal which are not in dispute are as follows:One Hriday Malakar executed a Will on 7/1/93 in favour of the plaintiff. The said Will was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Karimganj on the same day. By the said Will, the testator bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also appointed as sole executor of the Will. The testator having expired on 10/4/94, the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2010)31VST76(Gauhati)
R.S. Garg, C.J.1. The appellant, an assessee under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated May 17, 2007 (Jyoti Forge & Fabrication v. State of Assam) passed by a learned single judge of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 6111 of 2002 confirming the orders passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the revisional order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes has come before us with a submission that the learned single judge so also the subordinate Tribunals were absolutely unjustified in not appreciating that the first order of assessment was contrary to or in violation of the principles of natural justice or the statutory requirements, then the said order would be null and void and any order of remand cannot extend the limitation as provided under Section 37 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ appeal are that the appellant-writ petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!