Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2010Ass66,AIR2010Gau66
ORDERU.B. Saha, J.1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner made a prayer for the quashing/setting aside the order dated 24-8-2005 passed by the learned civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 45 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the instant suit filed by the petitioner as a plaintiff for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants, respondents herein, to remove the fencing illegally erected by them in the suit land and also allow the plaintiff and her family members to reconstruct the said latrine and kitchen and to use them and also to use well standing on the suit land as well as for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land under threat for using the kitchen, latrine, well in the suit land, disposed of on contest being not maintainable in its present form and nature.2. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 2010CriLJ1594
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The appellant herein has been convicted for attempted murder of his second wife and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, S.I. for 6 months.2. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence recorded under judgment and order dated 17-3-2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 53 (ST/B)/2007, the sole convict has preferred this appeal.3. I have heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. Also gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.4. The criminal law was set in motion by filing an F.I.R. on 11-10-2007 by Smt. Jharna Nama alleging that the accused subjected her to physical and mental torture for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In the F.I.R., it was specifically alleged that on the previous night, when her husband returned home, she s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : [2010]320ITR29(Gauhati)
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. This matter is placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the order of reference of the Division Bench dated March 20, 2009.2. The basic facts of the case are:3. All the petitioners herein (10 in number) are employees of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter called 'NEEPCO Ltd.'). They are working at different places in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.4. It is undisputed assertion of the petitioners that all of them originally belonged to the State of Assam and in the State of Assam, each of them was recognized as a person belonging to some scheduled tribe or the other specified under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also assert that they were employed by the respondent - NEEPCO against the vacancies reserved for scheduled tribes.5. The petitioners further assert that from the date of their employment, they were exempted from payment of income-tax in view of Section 10 Sub-section (26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : [2010]153CompCas579(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The appellant, a private limited company, was, originally, incorporated, under the Companies Act, 1930, and is, therefore, an 'existing company' within the meaning of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant-company is in the business of manufacture and sale of tea and owns a tea estate, which is run under the name and style of Radhabari Tea Estate, situated in the district of Golaghat, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant's tea estate'). For the last few years, the appellant's tea estate ran into losses. Consequently, the appellant's tea estate has not been able to make payment of its various dues, such as, electricity dues, creditors' dues, statutory levies as well as demands from the financial institutions. The electricity supply to the said tea estate stands disconnected since the year 2007 and the appellant's-bank has also declared the appellant-company as a non-performing asset and has accordingly initiated proceedings against the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2009)25VST140(Gauhati)
T. Vaiphei, J.1. The legislative competence of the State of Meghalaya to enact Section 106 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the Act', for short) is called into question by thirteen petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions. As they involve identical questions of law and facts, they were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.2. To comprehend and decide the controversy in these writ petitions, we will first refer to the facts in W.P. (C) No. 48(SH) of 2007 and then apply our decision to the remaining cases. The petitioner is a society under the name and style of 'MES Builders' Association' registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with one of its branches located at Shillong, and has a membership of 40 builders/contractors. The members of this society are undertaking construction works on behalf of Garrison Engineer under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and are registered dealers with the sales tax authority of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : [2009]151CompCas583(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both these criminal petitions inasmuch as both these petitions have arisen out of the same order, which stands impugned in these criminal petitions, and both have been, on the request made by learned Counsel for the parties, heard together.2. By making these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioners have sought for setting aside and quashing the order, dated May 30, 2007, whereby cognisance of offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B/34 of the IPC has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, and summons have accordingly been directed to be issued against the present petitioners as accused.3. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party. I hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2010)27VST421(Gauhati)
Amitava Roy, J.1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to nullify the order dated December 23, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam elucidating that the item 'power tillers' is taxable at 12.5 per cent under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereafter referred to as, 'the Act') for the period May 1, 2005 to July 28, 2005, i.e., prior to its inclusion in serial No. 65 of the Second Schedule to the enactment. The show-cause notice dated December 29, 2008 of the Superintendent of Taxes (Central VAT Audit Cell) attached to the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati requiring the petitioner-firm to explain as to why its turnover of Rs. 3,72,98,098 for the aforementioned period would not be assessed at that rate is consequently also under challenge.2. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue, for the respondents.3. Whereas, petitioner No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Gau)573,[2009]314ITR191(Gauhati)
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Out of the several substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of this appeal, two questions have been urged by the appellant at the hearing. The first relates to the addition of Rs. 40,04,369 made by the Assessing Officer in a block assessment order dated November 21/2000, under Section 158BC and Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The block period covered the assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The said addition having been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the said order having been affirmed by the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated July 18, 2006, the instant appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The second issue pressed at the hearing relates to another addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of a sum of Rs. 14,98,282 on account of disallowable travelling expenses incurred through credit cards recovered in the course of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2009Gau151
J. Chelameshwar, C.J.1. When this matter was taken up on 29-4-2009 Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent in PIL No. 50/04) raised a preliminary objection regarding the legality of the proceedings before this Full Bench. According to the learned Counsel petitions filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 are required to be heard either by a single Judge or a Division Bench consisting of two Judges and the Rules framed by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 225 do not contemplate hearing of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Bench consisting of more than two Judges unless a Division Bench hearing the writ petition makes a specific reference of any question of law which in the opinion of the Bench hearing the matter is required to be considered and decided by a Full Bench or a Larger Bench. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the instant case there is no such order of reference by the Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2009Gau142
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioners herein are basically seeking implementation of Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Reservation Act'), whereby the benefit of reservation of certain percentage of Seats for the students from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have been provided in the Central Educational Institutions (for short 'CEI'). Precisely the prayer is confined to National Institute of Technology (for short 'NIT'), Agartala which is a CEI within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Reservation Act, and situated within tribal area referred to in 6th Schedule of the Constitution, since the said NIT is not extending reservation facility to OBC students.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were represented by Shri A. Lodh, learned Central Government Counsel whereas the NIT (Respondents Nos. 4 an...
Tag this Judgment!