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 : 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 : [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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : AIR2009Sik6
ORDERA.P. Subba, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Grangtok in Title suit No. 06 of 2006, whereby an application praying for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') was rejected.2. The facts of the case relevant for our present purpose are that the original plaintiff, i.e., the opposite party No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of records of rights, injunction and other consequential reliefs against the present petitioner and others in June, 2006. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit premises was given to her mother Late Libing Anyo by Late Libing Athing alias Rai Bahadur SonamTopden out of love and affection towards his brother Late Dugda Kazi, husband of Libing Anyo as per the old custom and tradition. After the suit property was so handed over Libing Anyo, the mother of the, plaintiff, moved into ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3259
Aftab H. Saikia, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition witnesses a challenge basically to the order dated 12-7-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2006.2. The facts necessary for resolution of the point involved herein may be noticed in brief. On the basis of certain allegations of misappropriation in deposition of electricity charge payment with the State Bank of Sikkim, Ravongla collected by the Respondent, the State of Sikkim (for Short, 'the State') initiated a criminal proceeding against the Respondent under Sections 409/420/477-A and the Respondent, being a public servant, it was necessary at that moment to obtain sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P. C.').3. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed against the Respondent on 27-9-2006 accompanied by the sanction order dated 26-7-2006 (for short, 'the initial order').4. The initial order may be reproduced as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
WANGDI, J. (1.) This writ petition is directed against the Order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok dated 16-8-2010 in S.T. Case No. 2 of 2005, by which an application under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short "Cr. P.C") read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner was dismissed. (2.) In the writ petition, it has been stated that in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, a case under Sections 468/471/420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") had been registered against the petitioner and one Dawa Karma Lepcha and a joint trial conducted against them. It is stated that during the trial, the accused No. 2, Dawa Karma Lepcha, was not present and the petitioner alone had appeared before the trial Court but, subsequently even the petitioner could not appear under circumstances said to be compelling against him. That later, accused No. 2, D...
Tag this Judgment!