Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated May 12, 1997 (see , passed in the aforementioned civil rules. The factual setting for all the writ petitions is the same and as common questions of law based thereon had arisen for adjudication, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. We have heard Mr. G. K. Joshi, senior advocate, assisted by Mr. R. K. Joshi and Mrs. U. Chakravarty, advocate, for the appellants/writ petitioners and Dr. A. K. Saraf, senior advocate, assisted by Ms. N. Agarwal, advocate, for the respondent/Revenue.3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary to be taken note of for comprehending the competing arguments of the parties are that the appellants/writ petitioners are residents of Thangal Bazar, Imphal, in the State of Manipur and are existing assessees under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), enjoying income from house property, share of profit from their res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. We have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned senior Counsel, for the insurer appellant and Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents.2. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of all the appeals enlisted above, for, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, all these appeals have been heard together as the appeals involve largely identical facts and common questions of law, the same are capable of being disposed of together and it is conceded by the learned Counsel for the parties that the decision in any of these appeals will have a bearing on the outcome of the remaining appeals.3. We, first, cull together the material facts and various stages, which have led to the present appeals:(i) On 25.10.1999 at about 7 p.m., the bus bearing registration No. ML 05-9275, owned by the respondent No. 1 herein and driven by respondent No. 2 herein, while carrying contrary to the road permit, more than the permissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
S.L. Saraf, J. 1. By these two writ applications, the petitioner had challenged, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the respondents after a period of four years from the date of the assessment. The notices relate to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. From the notices dated December 13, 1990, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it appears that the said notices were issued alleging that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the income for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 escaped assessment. As such, the said officer was entitled to reassess the income of the assessee for the said two assessment years. The said notices contain a further sentence relating to the obtaining of the necessary satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax for issuance of such notices. The said notices were challenged by the petitioner by a letter dated December 28, 1990, whereby the petitioner stated that the conditions precedent f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
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!Court : Patna
Loknath Prasad, J.1. The Death Reference No. 2/97 (R) and the Criminal Appeal No. 103/97 (R) we taken up together as both relate to a judgment of conviction both recorded by Sri Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 1995 and thereby and thereunder Sunil Tirkey and Benjamin Minj were found guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as against them a death sentence was awarded and similarly these two appellants were found guilty also under Sections 396, 120B and 201, IPC, but no separate sentences were, awarded under these counts. Appellant Prakash @ Kahto Oraon, Julius Bara and Sunil Minj were found guilty under Section 302/34 and also under Section 396, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under both the counts separately, but no separate sentence was recorded under Section 201, IPC and it was ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. For the reason that aforesaid two appellants were awarded death se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.B. Pal, J.1. The challenge, in these two appeals, is to the judgment dated 19.04.2005, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura Khowai in ST. 54 (WT/K)/2002, convicting Tapan, Das and Gautam Das under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, but acquitting ten other accused persons. The two convicts have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. They have challenged their conviction and sentences by instituting Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2005. The State is before us, in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2005, challenging the acquittal of ten accused persons. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.2. Prosecution Version:- The factual matrix first. On 31.08.2000, at about 6.30 pm, one Tapan Chakraborty was done to death by a group of miscreants. He was the leader of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DY...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
The judgment of the court was delivery byM. C. PATHAK C.J. - By this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act"), issued by the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Jorhat, to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the accounting year R. N. 2014, along with statements of accounts such as trading account, profit and loss account, balance-sheet, interest account, salary account, partners account, accounts of various parties from whom goods were purchased and loans were taken or paid and those statements formed part of the said return. On the basis of the said return assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59 were completed by the Income-tax Officer, Jorhat, under section 23(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on October 30, 1958. The In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. The legality of the proceeding under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as the notice dated March 30, 1987, issued by respondent No. 4 in exercise of power under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1982-83 is the subject-matter of this proceeding. 2. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 1982-83 on November 26, 1982, showing its total income at Rs. 14,340. The assessment was completed by respondent No. 4 on examination of the books of account produced in compliance with the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, vide order dated January 19, 1983. The petitioner preferred appeal against the assessment challenging disallowances of certain expenses which were also finally disposed of. A survey was conducted by the Income-tax Officer along with other officers on February 27, 1985, in the business premises of the petitioner/firm. According to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. All these cases raise common issue and have been decided by learned Single Judge by a common order 12-2-2007. We propose to do the same.2A. Shorn of all elaborations, the key issue raised in these appeals is about the classification made in the scheme framed by the appellant Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the State of Bihar. The scheme is known as BSFC OTS (One Time Settlement) Scheme. The scheme is meant for inviting willing applicants who are debtors defaulters of the Corporation for one time settlement under the terms and conditions of the Scheme. For the purpose of scheme the original promoters of the Unit in default have been classified in two categories (i) those defaulter promoters against whom no action under Section 29 of the Act has been taken by the Corporation for taking over the management or possession or both of industrial concerns with a right to transf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Based on a complaint lodged by Shri Inder Chand Goenka (since de ceased) for prosecution of the present petitioner, namely, Shri Kushal Kumar Talukdar as accused under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as 'the N.I. Act'), C.R. Case No. 3002/2000 was registered in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati.2. In course of time, in pursuance of the summons issued, the accused-petitioner appeared, through his counsel, in the said complaint case. While the Complaint Case No. 3002(C)/2000 aforementioned was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, the complainant, Shri Inder Chand Goenka, died on 18-7-2000 and his only son, namely, Shri Chandra Prasad Goenka filed a petition, on 18-9-2000, for substituting him as a complainant in place of his deceased-father. This prayer was allowed by the learned Court below by its order, dated 18-9-2000, where upon the accused-p...
Tag this Judgment!