Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2007Sik23
A.P. Subba, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 3-5-2006, passed by the Learned District Judge, (South and West) at Namchi in Title Suit No. 5 of 2004, rejecting an application dated 24-4-2006 filed by the petitioners, seeking permission to validate an unregistered sale deed dated 6-2-1968 (Annexure-A1) by paying penalty in terms of Notification No. 2947G dated 22-11-1946.2. The relevant facts of the case, in short, are that the principal Private Respondent Nos. 1 to 17 herein filed Title Suit No. 5 of 2004 in the Court of Learned District Judge (South & West) at Namchi against all the defendants/petitioners and the Proforma Respondents claiming partition of the suit properties covered by Plot Nos. 47, 162 and 428 situated at Mangmoo Block, P.S. Dentam, West Sikkim from the defendant/Petitioners and of plot Nos. 374 and 383 located in the same block from the Proforma Respondent Nos. 18 to 20.3. The case of the Principal Respondent Nos. 1 to 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2007Sik15
A.P. Subba, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24-3-2006, passed by the learned District Judge (South & West) at Namchi, in title Suit No. 9 of 2005.2. The facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of this Appeal, in a nutshell, are that the Appellants herein, who were minors, filed a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 14 of 1988 through their mother and natural guardian against the present Respondent No. 1 and others in the Court of learned Civil Judge (West) at Gyalshing for declaration, recovery of possession and other reliefs in respect of a piece of land i.e. the suit land in the year 1988. In the said suit the case of the Plaintiffs/Appellants, in short, was that they were Sikkimese by birth and members of Bhutia Tribal Community of Sikkim, whereas the Defendants /Respondents were the members of Nepali Community who did not hold Sikkim Subject. The suit land was their ancestral and joint family property. As such, their father Late Gompu Bhutia, who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2006Sik1
A.P. Subba, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by three petitioners each of whom belongs to the Lepcha community, Bhutia community and the local plains community of the State respectively. By this writ petition, they challenge the validity of allotment of lands made and the agreements entered into with three non-local parties as well as others by the State-respondents in gross violation of Indo-Sikkim Treaty, 1950 and Article 371-F of the Constitution of India.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are citizens of India and permanent residents of Sikkim. As permanent residents of the State they are extremely concerned with the allotment of land policy being presently pursued by the State-respondents in the name of development of the State. Under such policy, permission being given to the outsiders to purchase prime immovable property for setting up industries within the State of Sikkim is adverse to the general interest of the local people. It is the further case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : [2005]276ITR456(Sikkim)
N. Surjamani Singh, Actg. C.J.1. These two writ petitions involved almost the same and similar common question of facts and law and, as such, this Court proposes to dispose of these two writ petitions by this common judgment.2. These two writ petitions are directed against the issuance of warrant of authorisation dt. 17th June, 1999 to 23rd June, 1999, including warrant of authorisation dt. 18th June, 1999, by the respondents against the petitioners under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for conducting search and seizure in the premises of the petitioners and the consequent issuance of impugned notice dt. 20th Feb., 2001 under Section 158BC of the Act directing the petitioners to file returns, etc., by treating the search and seizure operations as valid; for which the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed that such warrant of authorisation and the impugned notices dt. 20th Feb., 2001 issued under Section 158BC of the Act, be quashed as the same is u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2003CriLJ2799
Ripusudan Dayal, C.J.1. All these Criminal Revisions have been filed to challenge the Order dated 15-11-2002 by the learned Special Judge, P. C. Act, Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 8/1997 ordering the framing of charge against the petitioners.2. RC-8/84-CIU-(A) was registered by SP/CBI CIU-(A), New Delhi on 7-8-1984 at 1610 hrs. against Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, former Chief Minister of Sikkim, Shri P.K. Pradhan, the then Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, M/s. Kumar Traders, Jorethang, Sikkim and others under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The investigation resulted in the filing of the charge-sheet on 14-9-1994 by Shri G. Verma, Dry. SP/CBI/SPE/ ACU(V)/New Delhi against 17 accused persons. Two of them namely, accused No. 3 H.P. Karki and accused No. 16 Shri N. P. Bhandari died before the impugned order of charge was passed by the learned trial Court and so, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : (2000)159CTR(NULL)161
R. Dayal, C.J.The petitioner is a company registered under the Registration of Companies, Act, Sikkim, 1961, on 23-6-1986. It was served with three notices dated 16-3-1995, by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle-4, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, each stating that the assessing officer had reason to believe that the income of rupees forty lakhs had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of that Act and requiring the petitioner-company to deliver to him within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice an income tax return. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged these notices and claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the same and also a mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the same. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-company was also served with three notices dated 5-2-199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : [2000]243ITR626(Sikkim)
Ripusudan Dayal, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Registration of Companies Act, Sikkim, 1961, on June 23, 1986. It was served with three notices dated March 16, 1995, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-4, New Delhi, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, each stating that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income of rupees forty lakhs had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of that Act and requiring the petitioner-company to deliver to him within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice an income-tax return. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged these notices and claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the same and also a mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the same. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-company was also serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1804
ORDERAnup Deb, Actg. C.J.1. By filing this revision petition the accused, Anand Bardewa has challenged the order dated 27-3-1998 passed in the Criminal Case No. 136 of 1997 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North, Gangtok whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for an offence under Section 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.).2. In the present case, the accused pleaded guilty to the charges. Various grounds have been taken. The accused is very young and he did not understand the intent and purport of the charge. It is further alleged that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to direct the accused to engage a lawyer at the State expense. He has also alleged that the prosecution has given assurance to the accused that they shall take a lenient view if the accused pleads guilty. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : (1994)116CTR70; [1994]209ITR715(Sikkim); [1994]73TAXMAN460(NULL)
ORDERThe point for decision at the moment in all these six writ petitions is whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to decide these petitions. The facts in the first five petitions bearing Nos. 9 of 1990, 10 of 1990, 11 of 1990, 12 of 1990 and 13 of 1990 are identical and so in respect thereof, it shall be sufficient to refer to the facts of only one of them, viz., Writ Petition No. 9 of 1990. The point of law involved is the same and arguments have been heard together and so all of them are being disposed by this common judgment.In Writ Petition No. 9 of 1990, petitioner No. 1, Messrs. of Mansarover Commercial Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company registered under the Registration of Companies Act, Sikkim, 1961, has its registered office at Gangtok in Sikkim and is carrying on business, inter alia, as commission agents in cardamom and other agricultural products in the State of Sikkim. It has asserted that all its activities and transactions have been initiated and finalised i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : [1991]191ITR575(Sikkim)
R. Dayal, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by petitioner No. 1, which is a private limited company (hereinafter referred as 'the company') and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 who are its directors challenge the income-tax assessment order dated August 4, 1987, passed against the company under the Sikkim State Income-tax Manual, 1948, notices of demand issued against the petitioner, the order dated September 4, 1987, whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1 was rejected on account of its failure to make payment of 50 per cent, of the tax assessed in compliance with Notification No. 1220-200/IT and ST dated December 20, 1973, and also the validity of the Sikkim State Income-taxManual, the notification bearing No. 1220-200/IT and ST dated December 20, 1973, Order No. 405/50 dated November 21, 1950, the Sikkim (Collection of Taxes and Prevention of Evasion of Payment of Taxes) Act, 1987, and also of Notification No. 32/IT dated April 2, 1987, regardin...
Tag this Judgment!