Court : Guwahati
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 100 read with Order 42, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. by the appellant-defendant against the judgment dated 10-6-1985 of the learned District. Judgc, Nagaon in T.A. No.4/84. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed TS No. 14/80 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, No. I, Nagaon for specific enforcement of contract for sale of land in respect of an area measuring 1K 4L covered by Dag No. 1843 in PP No. 1134 of Nagaon Town. The Plaintiff's case in the said suit was that on 16-6-1979, the defendant executed a 'Baina-nama' agreeing to sell the aforesaid land within 9 months for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, of which Rs. 5,000/- was received by the defendant on 16-6-1979 'and the balance amount of Rs. 15.000/- was to be paid by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff offered to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 15,000/-seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Cachar, Silchar under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction and sentence were confirmed.2. The facts as set out in the judgment of the court below are that on the 26th November 1957 an order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar directing the petitioner to leave the limits of the District of Cachar within one month of the receipt of the order. The order was served on the petitioner on the 1st December 1957. The order purports to have been issued under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act in the exercise of the powers delegated to the Superintendent of Police, Cachar under Section 12 of the Act by the Governor of Assam. The petitioner is described as a Pakistan national in the order. There is no dispute that the order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar and was du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Baharul Islam, J. 1. These references involve common questions of law; as such this judgment will dispose of all of them.2. As the facts and periods of assessments in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5/75 are more comprehensive, it will be more convenient to refer to the material facts of this reference first.3. The assessment years involved in this reference are from 1963-64 to 1968-69. Admittedly, the assessee was liable to pay wealth-tax for all these years. He was required under Section 14(1) of the W.T. Act', 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), to furnish to the Wealth-tax Officer (hereinafter called 'W.T.O.') a return in the prescribed form. In this case, he did not do so. The W.T.O. issued notices to the assessee under Section 14(2) of the Act and the notices were served on him. He did not comply with the notices. The W.T.O. also issued notices on the assessee under Section 16(4) of the Act. They were also not complied with. In the circumstances, he completed on October 31, 1970, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Both the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less similar facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.2. An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 14.2.2004 inviting applications for as many as seven posts of Lecturers in different subjects in the Gauhati Commerce College (in short 'the College'). The selection held pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, in so far as the posts of Lecturer in Accountancy is concerned, has been assailed in W.P.(C) No. 5912/2004 whereas the selection held in respect of the post of Lecturer in g Commerce has been assailed in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004. While the specific details of the challenge made will be noticed a little later what has to be recorded at this stage of recital of facts is that the petitioner in both the cases claim to have submitted their applications pursuant to the advertisement issued and to have participated in the separate selections held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Pathak, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'): 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the consolidated order dated March 31, 1970, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong Range, Shillong, relating to the assessments for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, with a direction to give a finding on the point as to what amount out of the securities is the stock-in-trade or circulating capital of the assessee, the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. and which amount is the capital investment of the assessee-bank ?'2. The facts of the case are briefly stated below. The relevant assessment years are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70,3. The assessee, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., is a bank regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. In this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the amended provisions of Clause 22(a) vide its resolution No. 24 dated 7.2.1991 of Assam State Electricity Board, here-in-after referred to as 'ASEB'.2. The facts relevant for deciding this petition briefly are that the petitioner being the partnership firm carried on business of manufacture and sale of black tea. Suddenly the Asstt. Executive Engineer, REC Sub-Division, ASEB, Tinsukia issued a letter dated 3.8.1992 to the petitioner's firm informing that on checking of connected load at the petitioner's garden on 4.7.1992, it was found that the total connected load was 266 KW instead of 240 KW i.e. 26 KW excess than the connected load and that as per the terms and conditions an assessment bill for excess connected load for 26 KWamounting to Rs. 39,312.60 vide bill No. 285/87 was also enclosed for payment. The petitioner vide his letter dated 4.8.1992 requested t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of the award dated 21.12.2004, hereby two claim cases, namely, M.A.C. Case Nos. 35 and 36 of 2000 have been disposed of by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dimapur.2. By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of both the appeals, for on the request of learned Counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been heard together inasmuch as the same have arisen out of the same accident and the findings in any of the two appeals may affect the outcome of the other appeal.M.A.C. Appeal No. 3 (K) of 2005:3. This appeal has arisen out the claim application for compensation, which gave rise to M.A.C. Case No. 35 of 2000 aforementioned.4. The material facts and the various stages, which led to the M.A.C. Appeal No. 3 (K) of 2005 aforementioned, may in brief be stated as follows:(i) The appellant No. 1 herein, namely, Chandra Singh made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Baharul Islam, J.1. These references involve common questions of law; as such this judgment will dispose of all of them.2. As the facts and periods of assessments in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5/75 are more comprehensive, it will be more convenient to refer to the material facts of this reference first.3. The assessment years involved in this reference are from 1963-64 to 1968-69. Admittedly, the assessee was liable to pay wealth-tax for all these years. He was required under Section 14(1) of the W.T. Act', 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), to furnish to the Wealth-tax Officer (hereinafter called 'W.T.O.') a return in the prescribed form. In this case, he did not do so. The W.T.O. issued notices to the assessee under Section 14(2) of the Act and the notices were served on him. He did not comply with the notices. The W.T.O. also issued notices on the assessee under Section 16(4) of the Act. They were also not complied with. In the circumstances, he completed on October 31, 1970, the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. The challenge in the writ petition is the Annexure-XIII Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 03/02/2012 followed by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11/06/2012 entered into between the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department headed by the Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred to as NRHM), Assam and the respondent No.4 Narayan Hrudayalaya, a private limited Company, as according to the petitioners such a course of action adopted by the respondents is contrary to the earlier promise made out to them in respect of running of the particular hospital, namely, Tolaram Subhkaran Bafna District Hospital. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: 2. The petitioners numbering 3 are charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and are represented by their Chairman and Managing Trustee. They have filed the writ petition challenging the action of the Government of Assam in the Health Department in entering into a Memorandum o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner, the Bengal United Tea Company, Ltd., is the owner of a tea estate known as 'Aenakhal Tea Estate' Annada Charan Das, respondent 2, was employed as an assistant medical officer at Old Singalla Division of the Aenakhal Tea Estate. He was dismissed by an order of the petitioner on or about 28 January 1959. On 9 January 1959 it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent 2 absented himself from his duties without leave from 3 p.m. to 4-30 p.m. A preliminary inquiry was held by one O. Carruthera, the manager of the said tea estate, on 12 January 1959, and the respondent 2 is alleged to have shouted at the manager and one V.K. Nanda, assistant manager.2. Thus he was guilty of gross insubordination to the manager. On 13 January 1959 the respondent 2 was asked by the manager to explain in writing within seventy-two hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the charges contained in the letter of that date. The respondent 2 however submi...
Tag this Judgment!