Guwahati Court May 1952 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.
Tek Bahadur Vs. Debi Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-29-1952
Deka, J. 1. This is an application for revision filed on behalf of defendant 1--Tek Bahadur Bhujal under Rule 36 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, challenging the order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, dated 20-7-51 affirming the 'ex parte' decree passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner on 17-3-50 in Suit No. 38/S of 1946 of the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, at Shillong.2. The matter arose out of a suit for partition of certain assets belonging to an alleged joint family concern known as Gurkha Dairy Firm including certain lands in the suburb of the town of' Shillong and for rendering of accounts. The original suit was filed by Debi Singh Bhujel against Tek Bahadur Bhujel and two others and the suit was registered on 10-9-46. It was undoubtedly a protracted litigation and some witnesses were examined on commission for the plaintiff and the depositions recorded...
Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur and Co. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-28-1952
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, U. A. D., dated 5-8-1950, by which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The plaintiff firm, called Messrs. Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur & Co., brought a suit against one Abdul Gani and Salamat Ali for delivery of khas possession by ejectment. During the pendency of the suit, Salamat Ali died and his legal representatives, namely, defendants 2-5, Were brought on the record.3. It was the case of the plaintiff firm that in July, 1922 Abdul Gani and the deceased Salamat Ali occupied the land without any settlement, but later came to an arrangement by which they became the tenants of the plaintiff firm by promising to pay rent with effect from 1-6-1922 On 5-2-1947, the plaintiff firm, through its advocate, served a notice of eviction upon Abdul Gani and Salamat Ali requiring them to vacate the land at the end of...
Stanley Wilfred D'Silva Vs. Agnes D'Silva and Anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-27-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. We have before us an order passed by the learned District Judge, U. A. D., dated 4th April 1951, by which he dissolved the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent subject to confirmation by this Court. When this matter came before us at a previous hearing, we remanded the case for a finding on the following issues : (1) Whether the parties were domiciled in the Indian Union at the time of presentation of the petition (2) Whether there has been collusion between the parties (3) Whether there has been any connivance? A report on these issues has now been received, but we find that no specific allegation of adultery was made in the plaint. All that is stated in para. 4 of the plaint is this : 'That since about October, 1946, your petitioner understands that his said wife has been living with one Vivian Leo, who has been made the co-respondent in this case. Your petitioner further learns that his wife has committed adultery with the said Vivian Lee during the period ...
Singram Marak and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-26-1952
Thadani, C.J. 1. The two appellants Singram Marak and Ranen Sangma have been convicted by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills under Section 395, Penal Code and each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 12 months. Out of the fine if realised, Rs. 500/- have been ordered to be paid to the complainant Songji Mechik as compensation.2. The case for the prosecution was that on the night of 31-5-51, the three appellants along with two others entered the house of the complainant Songji Mechik in which were sleeping her nephew Okhe Sangma and her mother, Bangri Mechick. Some 20 more persons stood outside. The intruders demanded money from Songji Mechik. Appellant Ranen is said to have tied her nephew Okhe by the leg to the bed post. Songji Mechik pointed out her suit case lying under the bed wherein she had kept her money. The intruders took the suit case which contained Rs. 500/- in ...
Golamjat Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-23-1952
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. The three petitioners were convicted under Section 411, Penal Code. They were found taking away by river two logs of wood which were seized. One of these logs had a mark A. D. A. on it. They were convicted under Section 411, Penal Code for being found in possession of the log with the mark on it. Their appeal was dismissed. They have challenged the legality of their conviction by this petition. 2. The facts found are that the logs were being taken up the stream at about mid-night on a rafter by the petitioners. Lalchand Namasudra, S. I., P. W. 3 saw them. He suspected that the logs were stolen property. He seized the logs and prepared a seizure list which was witnessed by three persons. One of these witnesses was examined at the trial. He is Monbahadur Chetti, P. W. 2. The seizure list contains the statement that one of the logs bore the mark A. D. A. 3. The defence set up was that the logs were 2 parts of the trunk of the same tree which petitioner Golamjat Singh...
Haridas Deka Vs. State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-22-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a petition by one Haridas Deka under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order of detention passed by the learned District Magistrate, Kamrup, dated 8.1.52, in the exorcise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, and Section 4, Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV (4) of 1950), as amended by the Preventive Detention Act of 1951 (Act IV [4] of 1951) The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner are these:That you were an active member of the revolutionary students front. You were arrested 5 times for your subversive activities and convicted thrice for violating the restriction orders-vide Government order No, 11659.H, dated 3.12.40, 2481.H, dated 24.3.41.That in the early part of 1947, you enlisted yourself as a member of the R.C.P.I. and took leading part in organizing the Krishak Banua Panchayat, and allied ...
iman Ali and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a revision application arising out of a case in which three persons Iman Ali, Samed Ali and Shamser Ali were convicted by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge L.A.D. under Section 366, Penal Code, and each sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment at a trial held with the aid of a Jury. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, their convictions and sentences were confirmed. They have now come before us in revision.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. On the night in question viz. 29.5.49, the wife of one Padma Bahadur Chetri, P.W. 1 was forcibly taken away from the room in which she and her husband were sleeping by some intruders. In due course a First Information Report was lodged and on completion of the investigation the police sent up the three applicants for trial. The only point argued before us was the identity of the applicants with the crime.3. Before we can interfere with the conviction and sentence of any of the applicants we h...
Gadadhar Saharia Vs. Ambika Kumar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-14-1952
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 447, Penal Code, for committing criminal tres-pass on the land belonging to the complainant. He was also ordered to restore possession of the land under Section 522, Criminal P. C. His appeal was summarily dismissed. He has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel and I see no reason to interfere with the finding that the petitioner committed criminal trespass by entering on the land belonging to the complainant and preventing him from re-entering on it by show of force, the finding being essentially on a question of fact on which the two Courts below have concurred. The contention which the learned counsel has pressed is that the order directing the restoration of possession of property under Section 522 is not sustainable in law. He points out that there is no clear finding that the complainant was dispossessed of the land by force or show of force or criminal intimidati...
Union of India (Uoi), Railway Administration Vs. Assam Valley Supply S ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-07-1952
Thadani, C.J. 1. This is a first appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, L. A. D., dated 27-6-1949 by which he decreed the plaintiff's suit with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs. 7,098-10-0. 2. The plaintiff Assam Valley Supply Syndicate, a registered firm brought a suit against the Governor-General-in-Council claiming a sum of Rs. 7,644-10-0 as the value of 500 bags of undelivered salt consigned to the Bengal Assam Railway. The plaintiff-firm was the Agent of Messrs. Shaw Wallace and Company for all the Assam Valley districts up to 31-3-1949. 3. It appears that Messrs. Shaw Wallace and Company booked the consignment of 500 bags of salt on the E. I. Railway on 19-8-1944 at a station called Salkea. The consignment was to be despatched to Barpeta Road on the B. A. Railway under Invoice No. 5, R/R. No. A. 3689. The railway receipt was in due course forwarded to the plaintiff's branch office at Barpeta. On receiving the railway receipt, the plaintiffs ma...
Bhagawan Ram Kairi Vs. Radhika Ranjan Das and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-06-1952
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, U. A. D., dated 6-4-1951, by which the plaintiff's application for the appointment of a receiver was disallowed. The prayer contained in the plaint was: (a) that the partnership known as 'Ranjan Talkies' be dissolved; (b) that the plaintiff be granted a decree for Rs. 78740-10-9 pies due to him up to the time of institution of the suit; (c) that he may also be granted a decree for whatever amount may be found to he due to him after taking of accounts, including whatever amount may become due to him after the institution of the suit; (d) that a receiver be appointed for the management of the business till plaintiff's claim is satisfied; (e) that the business be wound up after the plaintiff's dues are realised. 2. The partnership was for 5 years but this term as to the duration of the partnership was subject to the qualification that if within 5 years, the 1st party to the pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »