Court : Guwahati
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This Revision petition is by the Union of India through the Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, by which the learned lower appellate court affirmed the judgment of the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. 2. On first of May, 1973 a contract was entered into between the parties herein for construction of the main sewers at Dinjan within the district of Dibrugarh. The agreement was executed at Shillong. After completion of the work a dispute was raised by the contractor viz. the opposite party herein and as per the terms of the agreement it was referred to the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator gave a non-speaking award, awarding a sum of rupees five lacs and odd in favour of the contractor. It may be mentioned that during the arbitration proceeding the petitioner herein filed a petition under Sections 5 & 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1/99 and 3/98, vide a common order dated 10.2.99, the matter, regarding maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against an order of the Single Judge before the Division Bench, was referred to the Full Bench.2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, senior Advocate and Mr. S. Sarma learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.M. Lahiri, Senior Advocate for the respondents.3. Although the facts in L.P.A 1/99 and 3/98 are not much relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue before us, we can advert to them to appreciate the question raised in this Reference. The respondent plaintiff instituted Civil suit before the Deputy Commissioner, judicial, who function as the District Judge of Dimapur, Nagaland, for relief under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Plaintiff also sought temporary injunction and the learned Presiding Officer thereafter granted ex-parte injunction as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved the respondents preferred Misc. First App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1/99 and 3/98, vide a common order dated 10.2.99, the matter, regarding maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against an order of the Single Judge before the Division Bench, was referred to the Full Bench.2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, senior Advocate and Mr. S. Sarma learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.M. Lahiri, Senior Advocate for the respondents.3. Although the facts in L.P.A 1/99 and 3/98 are not much relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue before us, we can advert to them to appreciate the question raised in this Reference. The respondent plaintiff instituted Civil suit before the Deputy Commissioner, judicial, who function as the District Judge of Dimapur, Nagaland, for relief under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Plaintiff also sought temporary injunction and the learned Presiding Officer thereafter granted ex-parte injunction as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved the respondents preferred Misc. First Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
MEHROTRA J. - The petitioner - Messrs. Tansukhrai Bodulal - is a Hindu undivided family firm carrying on business at Kampur in the district of Nowgong. Shri Gordhan Das Khakolia is the karta of the Hindu joint family. On the 25th March, 1947, the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1946-47 was completed by the Income-tax Officer of Gauhati, under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called "the Act"), on a total income of Rs. 30,955. On the 24th March, 1951, the petitioner received a notice dated 19th March, 1951, purporting to be one under section 34 of the Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Nowgong, arrayed as respondent No. 1 to the present petition.The petitioner by the said notice was asked to submit his return for the period ending the 31st March, 1947, within 31st March, 1951. Several reminders were sent by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner to submit his return for the aforesaid period and ultimately the petitioner sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this Common judgment and order, the four review petitions are being disposed of, for, all the four review petitions involve identical facts and common questions of law for determination. However, for the purpose of clarity and with the object of avoiding independent discussion of the facts of each of the writ petitions, which have given rise to the present set of review petitions, the review petition No. 116/2003, which has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 27.01.2003, passed in WP(C) No. 458 (AP)/2001, is taken up for discussion and decision.2. The foundation of the judgment and order, dated 27.01.2003, passed in WP(C) No. 458 (AP)/2001, lies in an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the opposite party to the present review petition seeking issuance of writ(s) commanding the present applicants (as respondents in the writ petition) to release the outstanding bills of a sum of Rs. 5,67,121/- due to the opposite party No. 1 h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 02.02.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (for short, 'the Commissioner') in Title Suit (W.C.) 24 of 1996 dismissing the claim petition so preferred by the appellant as claimant seeking compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') 4ue to injury suffered by him in an accident in course of his duty as driver while driving the vehicle in question involved in the accident, holding that the appellant was not entitled to get any compensation basically on the sole ground that he failed to examine the doctors who gave the disability certificate as well as the discharge certificates on different dates.3. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel representing the appellant, has strenuously contended that the learned Commissioner has committed a patent error of law in observing that due to non-examination o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Pathak, Actg. C.J. 1. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, had been referred to this court for decision on the following question; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 18(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was procedural in nature and so the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not necessary for levying penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65 after its amendment by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 ?' 2. This reference relates to assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65. The following chart shows the details relating to the various assessment years :Assessment yearThe due date for filing the returnThe date on which the return was filedDelay in complete monthsThe date on which the penalty was leviedThe amount of penalt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the ex-parte order dated 25th March/96 in T.S. No. I of 1996 by the Learned District Judge, Kamrup. 2. A suit was filed by the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts under Section 29 for restraining infringement and under Section 27(2), Section 105(C) & Section 106 alleging passing off under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). The following reliefs were prayed for: (1) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants their servants, agents, atterneys etc. from manufacturing selling and/or offering for sale directly or indirectly dealing in candles under the trade mark PRINCE FIGHTER or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the trade Mark ROCKET & DEVICE of the Rocket and particular get up and passing of the candles of the defendants as and for that of the plaintiffs. (ii) For declaration that the plaintiffs and their users of fra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. The petitioners seek a declaration that the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati lacks territorial jurisdiction to try Title Suit No. 101/1996 instituted by the Opposite Party. They contend that, inspite of the objection to its competence having been raised at the earliest, the learned Court below has failed to attend to the plea. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has thus been resorted to.2. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.K. Ghosh and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. S.R Roy, Advocate for the Opposite party.The factual background of the aforementioned suit may, at the threshold, be stated. The petitioners, on 27.02.1990 had floated a tender inviting sealed bids for supply of 5000 K. Ms 30 Sq. mm 'Weasel' conductors (H 0037008) in connection with Minor Irrigation Projects under the World Bank Scheme. The Oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The first writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2921/2004 was heard at length during motion hearing. Although the learned counsel for the parties primarily argued on the prayer for interim relief, but on being pointed out that nothing might survive for final adjudication once the interim matter was decided either way, having regard to the nature of relief sought for in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the parties agreed for final disposal of the case. Thus the matter was taken up for final decision at the motion hearing itself.2. The other three petitions being WP(C) Nos. 7075/2004, 7076/2004 and 7077/2004 were moved at a later date and the learned counsel for the parties submitted, rather agreed that the arguments made in the first petition would cover these cases and also agreed for final disposal at the motion stage itself along with the first writ petition.3. All the writ petitions raise common questions of law on similar set of facts with minor variations rel...
Tag this Judgment!