Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-02-2005
..... and intercourse fall within the prohibition imposed by article 301. this court did not accept the argument that all taxes whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote should be governed by article 301. this view was further upheld in automobile transport case : 1scr491 and in state of kerala v. a.b. abdul kadir .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-14-2005
i.a. ansari, j. 1. heard mr. d.k. biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. u.b. saha, learned senior government advocate, assisted by mr. d.c. nath, learned state counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. the case of the writ petitioner may in brief state, thus :the petitioner's father, sachindra chandra saha (since deceased), owned some landed properties at ishanchandranagar, mouza madhupur, west tripura district. the petitioner's father died, on 15.1.2003, bequeathing his landed properties, by way of registered will, in favour of the petitioner, who is the youngest son of the said deceased. the petitioner, then, applied, on 23.3.2003, to the tehshilder, suryamani nagar/tehshil kachari, under section 46 of the tripura land revenue and land reforms act, 1960 (for short, the t.l.r. & lr. act) for mutation of the said land in his name as sole successor to the said property left by his father. based on the petitioner's application, mr case no. 31 of 2003, was registered and by a notice dated 26.5.2004, issued in the said proceeding, the petitioner was asked to present the said registered will, in original, along with other relevant documents of the land, in question, before tehshilder concerned on 7.6.2004. the petitioner accordingly produced all the documents, so demanded; but the tehshilder (revenue officer) denied to grant mututation on the ground that without the registered will having been probated, no such mutation can be granted in favour of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-08-2005
amitava roy, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-12-2004 passed by the learned civil judge (sr. division) no. 2, guwahati, in title appeal no. 38/2003 reversing the judgment and decree dated 2-4-2003 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division) no. 1, in title suit no. 59/2000 decreeing the suit of the present respondents/plaintiffs.2.i have heard mr. p.c. goswami, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. none has appeared for the respondents/plaintiffs.3.the predecessor in interest of the respondents/plaintiffs', shri maheswar mudoi filed a suit against the present appellants' praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of his right, title and interest in and confirmation of possession of the land described in schedule 'a' to the plaint. a decree for possession of the land described in schedule 'b' was also prayed for. the pleaded case of the plaintiff was that his father shri sonaichand mudoi (since deceased) was the absolute owner of the plot of land measuring 1b 1k 3l covered by dag no. 417 of kp patta no. 697 of uttar guwahati town under silasundorighopa mauza in the district of kamrup, assam. he died leaving behind three sons namely maheawar mudoi (plaintiff), dhananjoy mudoi (defendant no. 1) and harmohan mudoi (pro forma defendant no. 2).4. after the death of sonaichand mudoi, his son harmohan mudoi somehow managed to get his name entered in the record of rights against the whole plot of land. the plaintiff then filed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Apr-28-2005
a.h. saikia, j.1. heard mr. m. choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by mr. d. talukdar and mr. n. ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. also heard mr. k. monir, learned pp, assam.2. this criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.1996 passed by the learned special judge, assam in special case no. 25(a) of 1990 convicting the appellant under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (for short the 'act') and consequently sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of rs. 500 only, in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for ten days.3. the brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant while working as record assistant in the record room in the establishment of deputy commissioner, barpeta, on 13.2.1989, p.w. 2, abhay kumar bothra and p.w. 3, ganesh ch. das went to the record room to make a request to the appellant to send the case records to the court. the appellant demanded a bribe of rs. 100 from them to concede to their request. both of them reported the matter to the then deputy commissioner, barpeta who directed to lay a trap and accordingly one executive magistrate alongwith a police officer were deputed with one hundred rupee note duly initialed by the deputy commissioner himself to offer the same to the appellant by the p.w.2. when the accused accepted the said note of hundred rupee on being, offered by p.w. 2, the executive magistrate and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-24-2005
ranjan gogoi, j.1. this revision application under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned civil judge (jr. divn.) no. 2, golaghat in title suit no. 14/96. by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the suit filed by plaintiff under section 6 of the specific relief act has been dismissed. aggrieved, the plaintiff has instituted the present proceedings in revision.2. i have heard mr. r. gogoi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and mr. d.c. mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.3. a perusal of the judgment under challenge in the present proceeding would go to show that the plaintiff's suit for possession was dismissed by the learned trial court by holding the claimed possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land not to be proved and established by the materials on record. though this court, while exercising the revisional power under section 115 of the code of civil procedure will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact recorded on a consideration of the evidence and materials on record, in a situation where the findings of fact as recorded are diametrically opposed to the evidence adduced by the parties, interference in exercise of the limited power available under section 115 of the code of civil procedure will be justified. it is the aforesaid approach that this court considers appropriate of application to scrutinise the validity .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-20-2005
i.a. ansari, j.1. by this common judgment and order, i propose to dispose of writ petition nos. 1427/2004 and 6645/2003, for, both these writ petitions are intrinsically interlinked and the same have been heard together.2. le me, first, place the material facts and various stages, which have led to the present two writ petitions.3. the petitioner herein, namely, smti khiroda gogoi, being an elected member of boginadi anchalik panchayat, was elected as president of the said anchalik panchayat and while she had been functioning as president of the said anchalik panchayat, she, on 27.3.2002, approached this court with the help of her writ petition, namely, writ petition no. 6645/2003 aforementioned, her case being, in brief, thus : boginadi anchalik panchayat consists of 8(eight) elected members. the secretary of the said anchalik panchayat received a letter, dated 13.8.2003, addressed to him by some members of the said anchalik panchayat expressing their no confidence in the petitioner and requesting him to take necessary steps for removing the petitioner from the office of the presidentship of the said anchalik panchayat. this letter was supported by a separate sheet containing some allegations levelled against the petitioner. this letter was shown to have been signed by 5(five) members, but the petitioner had doubt that two of the signatures appearing on the said letter were not genuine inasmuch as these two signatures did not bear the seal of their respective gaon .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-06-2005
amitava roy, j.1. the basic challenge in the instant petition is against the assessment order dated 29.9.1999 passed by the superintendent of taxes, unit - a, guwahati, in exercise of powers under section 37 of the assam general sales tax act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), for the period ending 1993-94 consequent whereupon an additional tax demand of rs. 22,53,431.00 was made.2. i have heard mr. g.k. joshi, senior advocate assisted by ms. u. chakravorty, advocate for the petitioner and mr. d. saikia, advocate for the revenue.3. the abbreviated facts as discernible from the writ petition are that the petitioner no. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of sale of tea in gauhati tea auction centre as a registered broker. it is also a registered dealer with the superintendent of taxes, unit-a, guwahati, under the act. the petitioner no. 2 is the director of the petitioner no. 1 - company. for the year 1993-94, the petitioner no. 1 submitted statement of turnover for the months july 1993 to march 1994 and deposited the admitted tax due as required under the act. the petitioner no. 1 also submitted annual return on its turnover to be rs. 43,79,56,211.87. it claimed exemption from tax on account of having effected sales worth rs. 3,98,00,957.78 in course of export deals. in pursuance of notice issued by the assessing authority, respondent no. 3, the petitioner no. 1 produced its books of accounts and other relevant records, inter alia, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-30-2005
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 permissible capacity of 38 passengers, fell into a deep gorge at peitkynsaw-sohra road near mawpykrong village in the east khasi hills district of meghalaya. many of the passengers suffered injuries and out of them as many as 34 passengers succumbed to their injuries. in connection with the said accident sohra police station case no. 31(10) of 1999 under sections 279/337/338/427/304-a of indian penal code was registered. altogether 46 claim applications have so far been filed in the motor accidents .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Nov-29-2005
p.g. agarwal, j.1. heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused -appellant and the learned p.p.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment arid order dated 10-3-2000 passed , by the sessions judge, nagaon in sessions case no. 4(n) of 1999 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under section 302, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 5000/- in default further imprisonment for six months. the accused-appellant was also convicted under section 201, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- in default further imprisonment for three months. the accused was also convicted under section 387, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- in default further imprisonment for three months. all the sentences were directed to run concurrently,3. the prosecution case in brief is that a ransom note was received by the complainant (p.w. 5) narendra ch. das demanding a sum of rs. 10,000/-. thereafter, the nephew of the informant namely mithun das aged about 12 years was taken away by the accused-appellant-parimal mazumdar on 25-9-1998. thereafter another ransom letter demanding rs. 50,000/- was received by the informant. the complainant suspected that the ransom letters have been issued by the accused-appellant-parimal mazumdar and immediately the fir (ext. 4) was lodged before police. the accused was apprehended and he confessed about taking away of the deceased- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-19-2005
ranjan gogoi, j.1. both the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less identical facts were heard together and are being answered by this common judgment and order.2. the facts are somewhat long and a detail narration thereof will be necessary to understand the issues arising in the two cases under consideration. the facts being largely similar the court finds it convenient to recite the facts of w.p.(c) no. 2594/2005 and thereafter answer the issues arising in the said writ petition. the decision of the court in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., w.p.(c) no. 2594/2005 will provide an effective answer to the issues arising in the connected writ petition, i.e., w.p.(c) no. 5033/2004.w.r(c)no. 2594/20053. the writ petitioners, who are 17 in number, are presently working on ad hoc basis either as assistant enforcement inspectors or as enforcement checkers. their present tenure of service is upto such time that regular appointments in the said posts are made and it is the process initiated by the state for making such regular appointments which have been called into question in the present writ petition.an earlier selection process was initiated by the state government for filling up the posts in question in the year 2002. the same, would not be relevant, save and except for the fact that the said process was challenged before this court and the matter eventually reached the hon'ble supreme court. the apex court by order dated 4.8.2003 set aside the .....Tag this Judgment!