Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-20-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Will revision lie against the final order of the authority under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, is the core question, which this revision petition has raised.2. The material facts giving rise to the present revision may be stated as follows :(i) The opposite party herein, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 37/ 93 aforementioned for ejactment of the defendant from the suit premises and also for arrear of rent on the ground that the defendant was defaulter and the suit premises were bona fide required for the use and occupation of the plaintiff, the case set up by the plaintiff being, briefly stated, thus: The plaintiff and his brother, namely, proforma defendant No. 5 were partners of M/s. Ellora, a registered partnership firm, situated at Club Road, Silchar, having exclusive possession of the suit room. The plaintiff and his brother let out the suit premises to the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on monthly rental of Rs. 850, the rent being payable befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-24-2004
Amitava Roy, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common award dated 16.6.2000 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar.2. MAC Appeal Nos. 81-86/2000 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded, whereas MAC Appeal Nos. 97-106/2000 have been preferred by the insurer of the offending vehicle namely National Insurance Company Limited questioning the finding of the learned Tribunal that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation though, according to it, due to the breach of the conditions of the policy such a liability could not be imposed on it. The appeals were heard together as a common question of law was involved and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. We have heard Mr. T. Das, Advocate for the claimants, Mr. SS Sharma, Advocate for the insurer and Mr. N Choudhury, Advocate for the owner of the vehicle namely, M/s Loobha Tea CompanyLimited.4. Briefly stated, the relevant fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-05-2004
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the four writ petitions pose common questions of law on same set of facts and thus taken up for a common judgment and order. The core issue involved in all the three writ petitions is whether 'River Silt' can be said to be 'Minor Mineral' or can be said to be 'ordinary clay' as defined in Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 for the purpose of levying royalty by the State Government.2. According to the averments made in the writ petitions, the petitioners are carrying of the business of transportation of 'Brahmaputra River Silt' to various destinations located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Guwahati city for the purpose of earning their livelihood. According to them, they collect/extract 'River Silt' from Pahikhaiti, Chunsali, Dompara etc. in and around greater Gauhati and transport the same to various destinations by their own trucks which are used for the purpose of earth feeling. Their grievance is that the Government of Assam in the forest d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-18-2004
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!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-21-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.8.2002, passed in WP(C) No. 62/2000, the writ petition has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has, now, preferred the present appeal.2. Can the terms and conditions of the service of a Government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? If so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers Will the power to amend the conditions of service rertospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to the Government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced Whether the writ of mandamus, issued in a given case, can be superseded by the Government and if so, how and what extent What was the real question, which the WP(C) No. 62/2000, had raised for determin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Nov-23-2004
B.K. Sharma, J.1. All the above three writ appeals are in respect of the common judgment and order dated August 9, 1996 Reported at [1997] 104 STC 453 (Gauhati) passed in Civil Rule Nos. 5 of 1996, 10 of 1996 and 11 of 1996 by and between the same parties. The present appellants filed the writ petitions and the same were dismissed by the said common judgment and order. The present writ appeals arising thereof and involving same set of facts and common question of law were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The writ petitioners/appellants M/s. Fatikcharra Tea Estate is a registered dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. The tea garden became sick and the same along with some other tea gardens was taken over by the Government of Tripura under an ordinance dated November 10, 1986, viz, the Tripura Tea Companies (Taking Over of Management of Certain Tea Units) Ordinance, 1986. The management of properties of the tea garden was also take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-02-2004
D. Biswas, Ag. C.J.1. The Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 5342, 5343 and 5344 of 2004 are taken up together for disposal.2. The petitioner No. 1 in all the three writ petitions is a partnership firm having its office at Panbazar, Guwahati, and the petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the firm. The notice dated June 22, 2004 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in purported exercise of powers under Section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 is in challenge in these three petitions. The notice reads as follows :To M/s. Eastern Enterprises, M.L. Nehru Road, Panbazar, Guwahati-1.Sub : Show cause notice contemplating revision under Section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 of the revised assessment order for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and assessment order for assessment year 1996-97.While examining the refund petitions submitted by you for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1996-97 and keeping in view the direction of the honourable Court, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-05-2004
S.K. Kar, J.1. It is really sad but is a fact that after consuming an unusual period of more than 10 yrs., this second appeal, registered on 7-1-1993, came up for hearing. On 17-7-95, this Court made an observation that the appeal was being dragged for nothing with further observation that none of the counsel engaged for the parties were either appearing or taking any appropriate steps towards the progress of the appeal. The matter continued to get adjourned on this or that grounds on request from the parties. It appears that the matter was left totally uncared for since 17-12-98 till 27-5-2003. Further prayer for adjournment was, however, refused and matter was heard on 19-2-2004.2. This appeal initially registered on 29-8-85 as C.A. No. 6/85 before this High Court was send down on ground of pecuniary jurisdiction to lower Court vide order dated 10-11-89. However, on admission, stay of execution of impugned decree was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12-1-1993 (Misc. Appln. No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-01-2004
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of soft drinks in agreement with 'Pepsi'. It is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed on it by the order of the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Unit-B and the order of affirmation of the same passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam on the revision petition filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner imported Visicoolers (a type of refrigerator) and stabilizers from M/s. Allwyn (a unit of M/s. Voltas Ltd.), Herderabad, Andhra Pradesh, worth Rs. 1,07,33,212 by using delivery note forms (form XXIV under the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993) making declaration to duly account for the disposal of the same and to pay taxes on sales thereof according to the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Nov-19-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Our constitutional scheme for governance is based on the rule of law. Absence of arbitrary power, as the Apex Court observed in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. : [1967]65ITR34(SC) , is the first essential of the rule of law. In a system governed by the rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. 'Law has reached its finest moments,' observed Douglas, J, in United States v. Wunderlich, (1951) 342 US 98, 'when it as free man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler ... where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered.' If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. [See S.G. Jaisinghani (supra).2. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under t...
Tag this Judgment!