Guwahati Court July 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.
Badrinarayan Agarwalla Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Dhar and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is an application, described as an application under Section 115, Civil P. C., but is an application under Rule 34 of the Rules framed for the Administration of Justice in the Naga. Hills District, directed against an order of the D. C., Naga Hills, dated 8-9-50, by which he affirmed the order of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills, who declined to execute a decree passed by the Dimapur Town Committee Panchayet on the ground that the decision of the Panchayet has not been accepted by a competent Court. 2. While we think the decision of the Courts below is correct, the reasons given by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and accepted by the learned Deputy Commissioner are not correct. The parties to the case are not indigenous inhabitants of the Naga Hills District. The plaintiff is a Marwari and the defendant a Bengali. Rule 30 of the Rules framed for the Administration of Justice in the Naga Hills District makes it obligatory upon the offi...
Prabhat Malla Barooah Vs. D.C. and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Thadani, C.J.1. This is an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus under the provisions of Article 236, Constitution of India, in a case in which the petitioner, Prabhat Malla Barooah, is being prosecuted under Section 17(1), Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 14 of 1908), in the Court of a Magistrate at Nalbari. Mr. Barua for the petitioner demands the release of the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) That the petitioner, after his arrest by the Police, was not produced before a Court, but before a Magistrate who was not then sitting as a Court. (2) That the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate only on the occasion of the first remand, but not on any subsequent occasion. (3) That Sections 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act offend the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c), Constitution of India, and are, therefore, void; that in any case, the provisions of Sections 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, are not reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rig...
Bankshidhar Agarwalla Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-25-1951
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is an application Under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case pending before the learned First Class Magistrate at Dhubri, in which the complainant is one Bangshidhar Agarwalla and the accused one Dinanata Sarma.2. The complaint was filed by the complainant Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, and it was sent to the Police by the learned First Class Magistrate for a preliminary enquiry. In due course, the Police submitted a report, stating that the matter was a civil matter. The learned Magistrate, acting upon the report of the Police, dismissed the complaint Under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant then applied under the provisions of Section 436, Cr. P.C. to the Sessions Judge, L. A. D., who, by his order, dated 10-1-51, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the learned First Class Magistrate to make a further enquiry into the complaint. Meanwhile, the original Magistrate was repl...
Pradip Chandra Barua Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Naga Hills and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Deka, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 4 of the Assam High Court Order 1948 - which runs as follows:The High Court of Assam shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Province of Assam, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the prescribed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories or any part thereof by the High Court in Calcutta, or by the Governor of Assam exercising the functions of a High Court.2. This petition relates to a criminal proceeding in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills, at Kohima in which the Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills has directed issue of warrant against the petitioner on the complaint of the Opposite Party filed on 3.7.46, on a charge Under Section 420, I.P.C.3. It is not disputed that the facts as stated in the complaint, do not constitute a criminal offence, but our power to interfere in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under...
M.A. Gaffur Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Deka, J.1. This is a criminal revision case that comes up for hearing under Section 439, Criminal P. C., against an order of the District Magistrate, K & J Hills, forfeiting a bail bond executed by the petitioner for the sum of RS. 10,000 on behalf of one T. C. Barlow. There were two sureties for the accused Barlow for Rs. 10,000 each and they were M.A. Gafur the petitioner and one Mrs. M.E. Phillips. Barlow was convicted by the Sessions Court at Shillong on a charge of fraudulent conversion and breach of trust and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He preferred an appeal to the Calcutta High Court which granted him bail till the disposal of the appeal and Gaffur and Mrs. Phillips stood sureties for him. 2. The appeal to the High Court on behalf of Barlow failed and he was asked to surrender and notices were accordingly issued on the two sureties to produce Barlow in Court but they failed. A notice dated 8-12-49 was then issued calling upon the bailor Gaffur to sh...
Saniram Kachari and anr. Vs. Gauri Ram Koch and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges LAD, by which the order of the Munsiff' of Gauhati decreeing plaintiff's claim was affirmed. Defendants have appealed.2. Plaintiff's case was that he purchased the property in suit on 9-5-1933 from Bhubal Ram Kachari, its owner. He got possession also of the property sold to him and claimed that he had' been in possession of the land since then. He further averred that he had obtained a mutation on the basis of the sale in his favour. Long after the sale on 4-6-1945, the first two defendants got the land mutated in their favour as heirs of Bhubal Kachari. He objected to the mutation in favour of the defendants but he did not succeed in getting the mutation corrected. He, therefore, sued for a declaration of title to the land and confirmation of his possession. It is worthy of note that in the plaint the plaintiff did not base his title on any sale deed.3. The contesting defendants denied that t...
Tolan Kalita and ors. Vs. Bhuban Chandra
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-17-1951
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438, Cr. P.C., from the Sessions Judge, U.A.D, The reference arises out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,2. On the 20th February 1950, Bhuban Chandra Sarma applied to the Magistrate for redress under Section 145, Cr. P.C. alleging that he had been dispossessed from his land by Tulan Kalita and others and that the dispute was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate sent the application to the Police for inquiry and report. The police report was not received till the 6th June 1950. A preliminary order was drawn up on the 21st June 1950. By this order the parties were asked to state their respective cases as provided in Clause (1) of Section 145 of the Cr. P.C.3. The learned Magistrate found that Bhuban Chandra Sarma had been dispossessed as alleged and was entitled to possession of the land. His order based on this finding was passed on the 13th December 1950.4. The learned S...
Bangshilal Bhora and anr. Vs. Rowtmal Patwari and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is an application under the provisions of Section 439, Cri. P.C. seeking to quash a complaint brought by one Kowatmal Patwari against three persona-Bangshilal Bhora, Anandamal Bhora & Rambahadur Tewari-in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Dhubri.2. The complaint is in these terms:The complainant files the complaint on the following allegations:-It is submitted that I am the Manager of Fakiragram Rice & Oil Mills. Accused 1 is the proprietor of the firm styled as Lalchand Chaganmal Gulcha at Karimganj, & accused 2 is his employee. In the 1st part of November lust, when accused 2 came to our Mill & gave a proposal to sell the mustard oil of our Mill as our Commission Agent, it was settled by & between both the parties that accused 1 & 2, as our Commission Agents, would sell our mustard oil at the Bazar rate according to our advice, & they would send the sale-proceeds by draft, hundi or postal insurance, & would tend the account of the sa...
Chandi Prosad Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-09-1951
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is a petition by one Chandi Prosad Mahajan under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of orders passed by the Appellate Board of the State Transport Authority, Shillong, dated 5th, 6th and 7th December, 1949.2. The facts material to the application are these. The Regional Transport Authority, Assam, caused a notification, dated 28-9-48, to be published in the Assam Gazette, by which it invited applications for temporary permits in respect of all permits which were to expire on 31-12-48. The applications were required to be made in the prescribed form which specifically refers to s. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and makes no reference to Section 58. The petitioner held 2 permits in respect of stage carriages and 2 for public carriers, which were to expire on 31-12-48. Pursuant to the notification to which we have referred, the petitioner applied in the prescribed form for 4 permits--2 for stage carriages and 2 for public ...
Kishorilal Bahati Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-09-1951
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a petition by one Kishorilal Bahati under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against an order of detention, dated 24-2-51, passed against him under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV of 1950) as amended by Act IV of 1951, by the District Magistrate, Sibsagar. The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner are these:I. That on 6-2-51 Md. Sarif Ulla, Prof. Agriculture College, Borbheta went to your shop to purchase yarn, but you refused to give the yarn saying that you had no stock.2. That on 7-2-51 Jogesh Chandra Charkravarty of Jorhat town purchased a pair of 10 yds. Dhuti from your shop @ Rs. 20/- for which you refused to issue any cash memo. The ex-mill rate of the pair of dhuti was 7-3-3 pies plus the excise duty -/5/9 pies.3. That on 8-2-51 Narayan Sarma, B. L. of Jorhat town went to you and wanted to buy textile dhuti, but you did not give him dhuti saying that you had no dhuti in your stock.4. That ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »