Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-26-2008
H.N. Sarma, J.1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, in GR Case No 336(A)/1998 convicting the appellant No 1 under Sections 302/34, IPC, the appellant No. 2 under Section 302/34, IPC read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B) of the Anns Act, the appellant Nos 3 and 4 under Section 109/34, IPC read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentencing the appellant Nos 1 and 2 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.00 by each of them and the appellant Nos 3 and 4 to undergo imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 by each of them.2. We have heard Mr N.S. Deka and Mr P. Das, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr R Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, Meghalaya.3. The unfolded prosecution case, inter alia, is that on 24.11.1998, the Officer-in-Charge, Rynjah Police Station received a written complaint from one Smt YV Gatphoh of Lumshngain, Ry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-09-2008
Amitava Roy, J.1. These appeals script a third bout of relentless, obdurate and animated legal tussle for seniority in the Assam Police Service (hereinafter to as the 'Service') between two classes of recruits. Their induction had been on the basis of two independent processes claimed to be drawn up under the Assam Police Service Rules, 1966 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules') in the Junior Grade of the service. At this point of time, most of them as is submitted at the Bar, have been promoted to the Senior Grade.2. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 448/2004 and 465/2004 assert to be special recruits contemplated under Section 5(1)(c) of the Rules. Leading the challenge in the rival faction is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 459/2004, a recruit under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. For the sake and convenience, two classes of recruits as above are hereafter referred to as special recruits and direct recruits respectively. The challenge in principal is against the judgment and order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-12-2008
Amitava Roy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions register an identical challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 3D, 3E, Clause (ii) and (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 21 as well as Section 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21A, 23 and 25(xiii) of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 as amended by Assam Agricultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Assam Agricultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act,2006 with the consequential relief of refund of the cess collected thereunder by the respondents together with the interest @ 15% thereon for the period 13.08.2001 to 08.12.2005 and till such time the same is exacted from the petitioners.2. The contextual facts though vary minimally, the spectrum of assailments being strikingly common in the cases, these petitions were analogously heard and this adjudication would answer the issues raised.3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Section Jahan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 5491 /2001,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-30-2008
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961'). 2. The respondent herein carries on the business of a Hospital. For the assessment year 1994-95, the respondent claimed a deduction under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I of the Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 14,85,387. The Assessing Officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-I, Guwahati, in his assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961, dated 5.3.1997 held that since the assessee company was notan industrial undertaking, it was not eligible for deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Act, 1961. Against the said order of assessment, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the issue as to whether the respondent was entitled to deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Act, 1961, had been decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-15-2008
M.B.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (in short NEEPCO), vide an order dated 8.4.88 and he joined his place of posting, the office of the Executive Engineer at Doyang Hydro Electric Project (in short DHEP), Wokha, Nagaland on 27.4.88.3. On 15.11.90, he filed an application to the concerned authority of the Corporation praying for transferring him from DHEP to some other place on the ground that while working there, there was risk of his life because of lack of security. In the said application, he cited instances of assault and threat made by a local contractor.4. Thereafter, he was posted as a Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-I on in-charge basis at Kopili Hydro Electr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-04-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can, in India, a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a holding company be treated as the subsidiary of the holding company even if the holding company is not registered in India and functions, in India, through its subsidiary, which is not registered, in India, as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, but which, in turn, functions through its subsidiary, which is registered, in India, as a company under the Companies Act, 1956? When a subsidiary is a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company, can the law ever treat the activities, acts or omissions of such a subsidiary as the activities, acts or omissions of its holding company? These are the two questions of paramount importance, which this writ petition has raised.2. This writ petition is unusual. Unusual, because, in the present case, the writ petitioners, instead of attacking the respondents, are themselves under attack, for, the writ petitioners are accused by the respondents to have suppressed the truth, made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-16-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Because of the fact that the questions of law, which are involved in the present set of appeals, are identical, the parties to these appeals are also the same and decision in any of these appeals would have a bearing on the outcome of the other appeals, all these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The appeals have been admitted on the following questions of law:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, ignoring the relevant materials before it, was justified and did not err in holding that there was no existence of valid Hindu undivided family and thus pass a perverse order ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the returned income is to be assessed in the hands of Krishna Kanta Barkataky and Ajit Barkataky in the absence of a finding that the funds invested in FDRs emanated from the individual income of K....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-02-2008
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Section Senapati, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bannerjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. T. Goswami, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Dey, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 3 and 15 and also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 4,6 and 8.2. This First Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.01 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No. 23/87 on being preferred by the defendant No. 7/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') against the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-25-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This batch of writ petitions involves 61 petitioners, who have been declared as foreigners by the respective Foreigners Tribunals. They have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the legality and validity of such declarations. Since the issue involved is the same, which is - whether the petitioners are illegal migrants to Assam after the cutoff date i.e. 25.3.1971, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, dealing with each and every case independently.2. One interesting feature of all the cases, except three, is that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Foreigners Tribunals are all Ex-parte. The petitioners, except in three cases, did not respond to the proceedings before the Tribunals, which the learned State counsel describes as a methodical ploy to prolong the proceedings on untenable grounds.3. Barring three, in all the cases, the common ground(s) is/are that the Ex-parte proceedings and judgments ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-05-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2.7.1997 in the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 86/1990 reversing three concurrent findings arrived at by the prescribed authorities in respect of restoration of the land to the appellant, a Tribal lady (ST).2. The respondent No. 5 herein (since expired) and presently represented by his legal heirs, filed the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 86/1990 making a grievance against the three successive orders passed by the prescribed authorities restoring the land in question to the present appellant, who was the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition.3. According to the writ petitioner, he had purchased 2.80 acres of land from the husband of the appellant in the year 1966. However, nothing was indicated in the writ petition as to on which date such purchase was made. Further, such purchase was stated to be by way of an unregistered Deed of Sale. In the writ petition, it was the cas...
Tag this Judgment!