Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-23-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 5036/2005 is the appellant in this writ appeal.2. The Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') vide its notification dated 14.2.2005 issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for settlement of, inter alia, the Entry Tax Gate in question. That, in response to the NIT altogether five tenders were submitted including the one submitted by the appellant and as well as the 5th respondent. The appellant offered a sum of Rs. 27,15,480.00 as against the sum of Rs. 25,00,000.00 offered by the 5th respondent. The offer of the appellant admittedly is the highest. It appears the Council instead of accepting the highest bid amount of the appellant entered into negotiations with the 5th respondent alone who increased the offer to that of Rs. 30,00,000.00, settled the said Entry Tax Gate in favour of the 5th respondent vide its order dated 8.4.2005. The appellant herein challenged the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-21-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. All the three writ petitions by and between the same parties, being based on same set of facts and the issue involved in all the three writ petitions being the same, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Amidst the writ proceedings initiated by the petitioners one after another, the first one being of 1987, the notices to show cause issued against the petitioner under Rule 233A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the actions initiated thereunder including the passing of the final order dated 31-10-2001 are yet to attain the finality.3. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by the petitioner No. 2 is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of plywood products. Formerly the company was known as Sudarsan Plywood Industries Ltd. (SPI) This company was merged with another company namely Himalayan Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. (HPI) with effect from 1-9-85 and in ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-24-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The writ petitioner who was appointed as Sepoy under the respondents is aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service passed against him pursuant to a Summary Court Martial. His petition against the order pursuant to the Summary Court Martial has also been rejected. Hence, this writ petition.2. Adverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Sepoy under the respondents pursuant to his participation in a recruitment rally organized by the respondents and his selection thereof. After serving as such in different places, he was lastly posted at Dimapur (Nagaland). He was sent for training in 1984 and on successful completion of the same, joined as Sepoy at 309, Field Ambulance at Merut (UP) in 1987. While he was serving as such, a Court of enquiry was initiated against him by an order issued on 23.09.97.3. The allegations against the petitioner was that he committed rape/attempted to commit rape on one of the indoor patients in the hospital. The C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-17-2006
B.S. Reddy, C.J.FACTUAL MATRIX:1. The Assam. Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (AMTRON) had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 23.11.2005 inviting bids for execution of the contractual work in the 4th Phase of Rajiv Gandhi Computer Literacy Programme (RGCLP) in three hundred schools in the State of Assam. As per the tender notice the interested tenders were required to submit their bids two parts, i.e. (a)Technical Bid, and (b) Commercial Bid, in separate sealed envelopes for the supply of hardware, software, courseware and connected accessories and provision of computer education service in government high schools on B0T (Build Own Operate and Transfer) basis. The date; mi g time of submission of tender was fixed on 19.12.2005 at 2 PM and the date and time for opening of technical bid was fixed at 3 PM on the same day. It was further indicated in the notice that the date and time for opening of commercial bid would be intimated separately to such of those bidders who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-19-2006
Amitava Roy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the learned Single Judge sustaining the challenge of the respondent No. 1 to the maintainability of the proceedings in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, registered on applications lodged by the State appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act) as well as restraint orders passed therein interdicting the related arbitral proceedings, the State is in appeal. Though by the common judgment and order assailed seven writ petitions corresponding to equal number of proceedings before the learned Court below had been disposed of on the same determination appeals only in WP(C) 609/04 (WA 264/04) and WP(C) 9953/03 (WA 265/04) have been preferred.2. We have heard Mr. C.K. Sharma Baruah, Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Markanda and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocates...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-19-2006
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
Decided on : Nov-17-2006
..... court are that the impugned notifications suffer from the vice of excessive delegation and cannot, therefore, be sustained.39. to sum up, sub-section (4) of section 3 of the aet act, 2001, is, to the extent that the same empowers the state government to add, by way of mere ..... offered or facilities provided, on the other, so that the traders, as users of such facilites, shall not be required to pay patently much more than what is required to provide such facilities. however, in bhagatram rajeeb kumar (supra) and bihar ..... carrying gas from gujarat to rajasthan, which passes through m.p., a fee charged to provide security to the pipeline will come in the category of manifestation of regulatory power. however, a tax levied on sale or purchase ..... a tax to be compensatory, there must be some link between the quantum of tax and the facility/services. every benefit is measured in terms of cost which has to be reimbursed by compensatory tax or in the form of compensatory tax. in other words, compensatory tax is a recompense/reimbursement ..... bhushan has relied on the decisions in district collector of hyderabad v. ibrahim and co. reported in : [1970]3scr498 and kalyani stores v. state of orissa : [1966]1scr865 , mr. shanti bhushan also ..... tax yield.150. in paragraph 23 of the above affidavit, the respondents further clarified the intention behind the enactment of the impugned act in the following words:the same as discernible from the preamble as well as other provisions of the act which is to broaden .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company represented by the petitioner No. 2, its Managing Director. It deals with manufacture and sale of plywood, board etc. The petitioner Company has a plywood factory at Tinsukia (Assam). It is liable to Central Excise duties in respect of the products manufactured in the said factory. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-L order dated 28.09.01 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong confirming the demand made in terms of the provision of Section 11(a)(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and in addition imposing the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- in terms of the provision of Rules 171Q(1) of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. The demand made was for Rs. 1,82,67,650.99 and the demand was made vide show cause notice issued about 21 years back. Thanks to ongoing litigation initiated at the instance of the writ petitioner, the matter has not attained its finality as yet.2. It was in 1984, to be precise, on 20.02.84 the off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Having suffered by a Decree dated 30.1.95 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No. 31/1977, the defendants have filed this first appeal.2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.3. The respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract dated 25.5.80 that was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 for sale of an area of land measuring approximately 421.49 acres situated in the district of Dibrugarh.4. The pleaded case of the plaintiff, inter alia, is that he having tea garden in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam and being desirous to purchase the suit land and the defendant having agreed to sell the same entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 1 on 25.5.80 to purchase the suit land, and defendant accepted a sum of Rs. 5000.00 as advance out of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-26-2006
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Brojen Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Addl. G. A. appearing on behalf of the respondents-1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K. Kumar, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondent No. 4.Sworn affidavit received by the learned Counsel for the Union of India by way of fax has also been presented to this Court and the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not objecting about such counter-affidavit response of the Union of India therefore keeping in view the urgency in the matter, the same is accepted and accordingly is placed on the record.2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner, the mother of detenu has prayed for quashing the detention order dated 3-6-2005 (Annexure-A/1) of Shri Puyam Ranachandra Singh (@ Bidhi @ Budhijao) passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short called 'Act of 1980), in exercise of power under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of 'Act 1...
Tag this Judgment!