Court : Guwahati
1. This appeal is directed against the two orders passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the CLB) in Company Petition No. 52/98 u/s 397/398 of the Companies Act which has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. Crozier's Agency Private Limited, pro forma respondent No.6 is a Company belonging to one family consisting of three brothers each with sharholding in the proportion of one third. Two of the brothers, who are respondents in this proceeding, brought an action before the CLB alleging, inter alia, that the shareholding position has altered by issue of additional shares in favour of the appellant group and that one of the respondents was removed from the office of the Director. Considering all the aspect of the matter the CLB suggested the parties for resolving the dispute amicably. The CLB accordingly passed an order on 16.12.1998 suggesting for restoration of parity in the shareholding and ordering one of the petitioners to continue in the Board of Directo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J.(A) Issues raised under reference:1. The questions that have been referred to this larger Bench by the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice (Acting) vide order dated October 31, 2005, on the administrative side for a conclusive resolution read as follows:(I) Whether in view of the provisions of section 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, as amended by the Assam Act XXIII of 1989 with effect from December 28, 1989, (for short 'the Assam Act'), unpaid cess under the Assam Taxation (on Specified Lands) Act, 1990 (for short the 'Land Act'), is to be allowed as a deduction from the net agricultural income under the Assam Act?(II) If not, whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation , unpaid cess under the Land Act has still to be allowed as a deduction from the net agricultural income under the Assam Act, in a situation where the assessee has maintained its/his accounts in the mercantile system?(B) Provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Saikia, J. 1. This plaintiff's first appeal is from the judgment and decree dated 12-6-70 and 25-6-70 respectively, of the Assistant District Judge, Nowgong, in Title Suit No. 26 of 1967, partly decreeing the suit against respondent No. 1 and dismissing the suit against respondents Nos, 2 and 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The suit land with structures thereon belonged to late Nasiben Nesa who died in Sept., 1964, leaving the defendant No. 1 her only son and heir. During her lifetime the defendant No. 1 leased out the suit property to the plaintiff on rent of Rs. 40/- per month from 23-6-59 till Aug., 1962. On expiry of the lease the plaintiff remained in possession without paying rent since July, 1963. After the death of Nasiben Nesa in Sept., 1964, on 30-12-64 the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiff to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000/-, received Rs. 5,000/- as advance, and agreed to execute the sale dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. U.B. Saha, the learned, Sr. Government Advocate assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. In this writ petition prayer has been made for directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners to the post/grade commensurate to their educational qualification since the date of their initial joining to the service as Contingent Workers along with consequential service benefits by obtaining financial concurrence of the State Government and also for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the appointment of 500 Lower Division Clerks/Panchayat Secretaries as illegal and arbitrary along with the prayer for declaring the Memorandum No. F.10(16)-Fin(G)/99 dated 22.3.2001 as unjustified and unreasonable. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that some of the petitioners being High School Pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court, that is, by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in Divorce Misc. Case No. 10(1) of 1993 (Divorce Misc. Case No. 14 of 1991). The present respondent-husband filed an application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. The written statement was filed by the wife-defendant and, thereafter, after filing of the written statement another application was filed to amend the plaint/petition and that was allowed. Accordingly, an amended petition was filed. The issues were framed by the Trial Court. The following witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties :(1) Samaran Horn Roy, P.W. 1, (2) P.W. 2 C.K. Rudra, (3) P.W. 3, Soumen Sarkar, (4) P.W. 4 Madhab Dutta, (5) P.W. 5 K.P. Roy, (6) P.W. 6, Ram Babu Rai. The evidence of the P.Ws. was closed. On 18.3.1994, 2 P.Ws. w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.1. This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner Shri Gauranga Chandra Deb of Joynagar Agartala, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ quashing the order No. 13 Col.-L.C.-60 dated 25.2.1960 of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong, with his office at Agartala for the State of Tripura, confiscating 41 gold bars weighing 426 tolas, 3 annas and 3 ratis under Section 67(8) of the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) read with Section 19 of the same Act, as made applicable by Section 23 (A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (Act VII of 1947), directing the confiscation to be absolute in terms of Section 23(A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act and further imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and to quash the Criminal Proceedings in Cr. Case No. 657 of 1959 pending before the S.D.M., Sada...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. N. BARUAH, J. :In this agricultural income-tax reference under s. 28(4) of the Assam Agrl. IT Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred to this Court by the Assam Board of Revenue for opinion of this Court :'1. Whether the Board, in deciding the appeal, was right in relying solely on the provisions of s. 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Assam Agrl. IT Act (as it stood prior to its amendment by the Assam Taxation Laws (Third Amendment) Act, 1989) without considering the implication of the second proviso to s. 8(2) of the said Act and the provisions of r. 5 of the Assam Agrl. IT Rules, 1939 ?(ii) Whether the Board was right in distinguishing sixty per cent. of income derived from cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea from agricultural income ?(iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where the Board was right in holding that sixty per cent. of the expenses disallowed in computing hundred per cent. of the composite income from cultivation, manuf...
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
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. Baghmara is the Head Quarter of a Revenue Sub-Division in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya State. This town is on the Bangladesh border and is situate between International border pillars 1143 and 1158. The town is divided by a P. W.D. Road Along the two sides of the highway there is a bazar. Near the bazar there is Police Station, a Primary School building and residential quarter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The inhabitants of the town speak more than one language and follow different customs and celebrate festivals in their day to day life. 2. On April 14,1987 the Rishi Community of the town were celebrating Charak Puja in the Primary School building. The establishment apprehended disturbance to peace and tranquillity in the town therefore alerted the law enforcement agencies. The Sub-divisional Officer who is also an Executive Magistrate was present in the town. The incharge officer of the Police Station was at the Thana. The Deputy Superintendent of Police arri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. M/s Woodcrafts Ltd. petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer for issue of writ or order in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari and prohibition for setting aside and cancelling notice dated 13.1.1995 issued on 17.1.1995 and served on the petitioner on 18.1.1995, copy whereof has been filed with the writ petition as Annexure A, issued to the petitioner under Section 11A read with Section 11A(1), 11D(1) of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (hereafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules 9, 52. 52A, 173C, 173G, 173Q, 209A and 226 of the Rules framed thereunder calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why:(i) Unaccounted for stock of plywood valued at Rs. 32,35,321.00 as in Annexure C-1/1 to C-1/11 seized on 07.09.1994 from Calcutta depot/godown and that valued at Rs. 8,04,989.07 as in Annex: C-1/12 to C-1/16, seized from their Delhi depot, in total value at Rs. 40,40,310.07, shall not be confiscated under Rule...
Tag this Judgment!