Guwahati Court November 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mt. Gunada Kumari and anr. Vs. Mt. Basanti Kumari and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This petition of revision is directed against the order of the Munsiff, Gauhati, dated 12-4-1951, by which he ordered the restoration of a suit which had been dismissed for default on 28-11-1950. The order dismissing the suit in default was in the following terms : 'Plaintiff is unready She prays for an adjournment on account of the absence of the witnesses. The defendants are ready The case has been dragging for the last 31/2 years. So I am afraid no more adjournments can be allowed. The prayer is rejected. Suit dismissed for plaintiff's default.' 2. The order by which the suit was restored was based on the finding of fact, that some of the plaintiff's witnesses could not attend the Court on 28th November, by reason of illness and plaintiff, therefore, had reasonable grounds for asking for adjournment which according to the learned Munsiff had been refused on inadequate grounds. 3. In revision, it is contended on behalf of the defendant that the order dismissing t...
Allambag Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-26-1951
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a first miscellaneous appeal from an order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, U. A. D., dated 18-2.1950 by which he ordered the execution to proceed in the following circumstances. 2. On 13-9-1948 the decree-holder in this case obtained a decree in the sum of Rs. 6,000 odd from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, U. A. D., at Silchar. After the passing of the decree an application was made to this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Companies Act, under Section 153, Companies Act. The Court, by its order, dated 1-10-1948 ordered that until the final disposal of the petition, the commencement and continuation of all suits and proceedings against the Company be stayed. The scheme was finally sanctioned by Ram Labhaya J., on 14-7-1949. 3. On 13-11-1948, the decree-holder started execution proceedings. On 7-3-1949, judgment-debtor 1 filed a petition praying for the stay of further proceedings for a period of six months on certain grounds....
Ngangam Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. Manipur State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. The sixteen convicts named above have appealed against their conviction, and sentence passed on 21.9.51 by the District Magistrate, Manipur, under Sections 121A, 122, 123 I. P. C, and so also under Section 19(F) of the Arms Act against some of them namely, Ibohal Singh, Tikendra Singh, Amuyaima Singh, Gokul Singh, Lobi Singh and Chourjit Singh. The details of sentences passed against each of them are as follows Mahendra Singh, Boro Singh, Ibohal Singh, Benoy Singh 7 years' R.I. each under Sections 121A, 122, 123 I.P.C. The sentences under Sections 122, 123 I.P.C. to run concurrently. Ibohal Singh is sentenced to 3 years' R.I. also under Section 19(F) of the Arms Act which is to run concurrently with his other sentences. All the above said accused are then to serve term of 14 years, Tebanda Singh has been sentenced to 7 years' R.I, under each of Sections 121A, 122, 123 I.P.C. which are to run concurrently and also 3 years' R.I. under Section 19(F) of the Arms Act...
Mechok Mechik and anr. Vs. Monje Mechik and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-15-1951
Thadani, C.J.1. This is an application under Rule 35 of the Rules framed for the administration of Justice (Civil) and Police in the Garo Hills District, inviting interference of this Court in the matter of the learned Deputy Commissioner, dated 9-8-50, on the ground that the two previous references made in accordance with Rule 31 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice and police in the Garo Hills were not acted upon by the learned Deputy Commissioner, as required by Rule 31 in the event of the Deputy Commissioner's disagreement with the umpire's decision : in any case, the learned Deputy Commissioner was in error in inducing the parties to refer the matter to the panchayat after he had declined to accept the decision of the umpire, dated 29-6-50: the proper course for the learned Deputy Commissioner was, if he did not elect to act upon the decision of the umpire, dated 29-6-50, to try the case himself, as there is no provision of law authorising the Deputy Commissioner...
Joges Chandra Pal Vs. Budhram Lohar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-13-1951
Thadani, C.J.1. This is an application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inviting our powers of supervision in respect of an order dated 30-6-51, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, upon an appeal from an order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Commissioner of Cachar on 16-4-51. The order dated 16th April 1951 arose out of an order dated 2-3-1951 passed by the same E. A. C. 2. The main ground upon which our supervision is sought is that the learned Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 2-3-51 when no appeal was preferred from that order, the appeal having been preferred against the order of the learned E. A. C. dated 16-4-51. 3. The proceedings in question were brought under the Assam Adhiar Protection and Regulation Act, 1948 (Act 12 of 1948) at the instance of the landlord under Section 5 of the Act. In due course the landlord applicant obtained an order which may be likened to a decree on 2nd March 1951; subsequent...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›