Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J.1. The petnr. Israil Khan @ Babua was ordered to be externed from the Province of Assam for a period of five years by the order of the Mag., 1st Class, Dibrugarh, dated 18-8-1949. On appeal, the learned Ses. J., UAD, modified the order of externment by reducing the period of externment from 5 to 3 years.2. The petnr. has assailed the correctness of the orders of the Cts. below on several grounds by a petu. Under Sections 435, 439 and 561 A of the Cr. P. C3. Briefly stated the facts are that the proceedings were initiated on a report dated 21-1-1949 from the Inspector of Excise, Dibrugarh, to the Dist. Mag. The report was to the effect that Israil Khan was by habit a smuggler of opium. He was importing opium from outside the Province & selling it to local retailers. His house had been searched on a number of occasions on suspicion but nothing incriminating was found as the result of these searches. It was further stated that he had secret places for storage of opium & h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The common question, which we have to decide in these applications is about the constitutional validity of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (Assam Act I of 1957), which came into force on 15-2-1938 and received the assent of the President on 7-12-1956. 2. The attack on the legislation is directed on various grounds. It is urged : that the impugned Act is not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, as it is not covered by any of the items in either the State or the Concurrent Legislative list given in the Constitution of India; that it purports to acquire private property of individuals without any public purpose and without providing for adequate payment of compensation and puts a limitation on the right to acquire, hold or dispose of property and is, therefore, hit by Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution; that the provisions in regard to payment of compensation are merely illusory and the legislation is a colourab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
MEHROTRA, J. - This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for - (a) a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents to withdraw, cancel or forbear from giving effect to the notices issued against the applicant under section 46 (5A) of the Income-tax Act; (b) a writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to send for the records of the case and the proceedings be thereafter quashed; (c) a writ of prohibition calling upon the respondents to cancel or to forbear from giving effect to or in any way taking any steps in respect of the notices issued under section 46 (5A) of the Income-tax Act.The petitioner carries on business and is regularly assessed to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the Act. Under section 5 (4) of this Taxation on Income (Investigation Commissioner) Act, 1947, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Income-tax Investigation Commission. An application was then made under section 8A of the said Income-ta...
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
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
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
K.N. Saikia, C.J. 1. The question to be decided in this petition is whether wax candles are goods distinct and different from wax for the purpose of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. If wax candles are distinct goods it will be taxable under the Assam Sales Tax Act; if it is wax it will be taxable under the Assam (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1955, shortly, 'the Petroleum Taxation Act'.2. The petitioner, M/s. Modern Candle Works, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of sale and supply of wax and wax candles since 1971. It purchases wax in bulk, makes candles out of it and sells. The firm is registered now as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, hereinafter called 'the Superintendent', by his notice dated 27th July, 1971 issued under Section 10 of the Act directed the petitioner to apply for registration as a dealer under the Act, but th...
Tag this Judgment!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
Manisana, J. 1. In this appeal, the question which arises for consideration is whether the appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. Facts, -- A single Judge of this Court dismissed Civil-Revision No. 128 of 1984 on 27-11-90 on merits though the petitioner in the revision was absent. The petitioner filed before the single Judge two applications, one under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. for review of the order of dismissal and the other under Section 151, C.P.C. for restoration of the revision. Both the applications were rejected on 4-1-91 by a composite order in Review Application No. 1 of 1991. Hence this appeal. 3. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has two parts. We are concerned with the first part. The first part, in so far as civil matter is concerned, provides: 'And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court.............fromthe judgment (not being a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
S.B. Roy, J. 1. By this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the ex parte order of ad interim injunction dated 26-8-92 passed by Munsif No. 1, Golaghat in Misc. (J) Case No. 14/92 arising out of Title Suit No. 24/92. 2. The petitioner is the Joint Managing Director of Buragohain Tea Estate (P) Ltd., Golaghat. The aforesaid Buragohain Tea Estate (P) Ltd. is a registered company incorporated in 1927 for cultivation of tea and other activities as detailed in the Memorandum of the Association of the company. The respondent is a shareholder of the said company. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed Title Suit No. 24/92 in the Court of learned Munsif No. 1, Golaghat for a declaration that the impugned resolutions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 adopted in the Extraordinary General Meeting of the said company held on 17-8-92 as illegal, void and inoperative in law and for a further declaration that the extraordinary general meeting of the company dated 17-8-92 was illegally ...
Tag this Judgment!