Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-20-1980
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 23-12-76 passed in L. A. (Misc.) Case No. 16 of 1976 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act and directing the awarded amount to be deposited in the State Bank of India, Shillong branch in the name of the Collector under Fixed Deposit Scheme and holding that the Court had no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to decide the right, title and interest of the parties under the proceedings. It involves two questions, namely (1) Whether a reference Court has jurisdiction to decide the question, of title and interest of the parties when a post award civil suit on the same subject-matter is pending in a civil Court? (2) Whether an application under Articles 226/227 is maintainable?2. A plot of land measuring 93 acres, more or less, situate at Spread Eagle Falls, Shillong was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and an award was given by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-11-1980
D. Pathak, Actg. C.J. 1. These two cases are referred under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'). As in both the cases the following identical question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court, they are dealt with together. The question of law is ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of the deceased in the value of the goodwill of the firm is not included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased and whether on that basis the Tribunal was justified in deleting Rs. 18,250 as added by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in the assessment ?' 2. The broad facts are that Ram Rang Taneja of Gauhati died in a car accident on August 8, 1971. At the time of his death, he held 50% share in the partnership of M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-21-1980
Pathak, C. J. (Acting) 1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the W/T message dated 22-2-80 issued by the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam with Memo No. VFF. 465/79/134-A dated 22-2-80 under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department directing all Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers not to open the tenders received by them or to make settlement of the fishery without prior clearance from the Government. 2. The facts leading to the present petitions converge on a very narrow compass. The petitioners in both the petitions are members of the Scheduled Caste and belong to Kaivarta family selling fish in the market and dealing in fishery business. The Deputy Commissioner of Dibrugarh issued a notice of sale of fisheries of the Dibrugarh District on 12-2-80 inviting lenders on or before 20-3-80 for settlement of as many as six registered fisheries for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-25-1980
Ibotombi Singh, J. 1. This reference has been made in compliance with the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It arises out of the orders for penalties made for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. The question referred to us is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the levy of penalties of Rs. 2,530, Rs. 5,290 and Rs. 3,000 for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, respectively, under Section 273 read with Section 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was valid in law '2. After we have heard at length learned counsel of both the parties, we were not satisfied that the statements in the case referred to us were sufficient to enable us to determine the question above. Under Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961, we referred back the case to the Appellate Tribunal and directed it to draw up additional statements on the following points, viz.:' (1) Wheth...
Tag this Judgment!