Guwahati Court March 1953 Judgments
Bhairabendra Narayan Bhup Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-30-1953
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The questions involved in this appeal are: (1) whether there was a cause of action for the suit; and (2) whether the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. was adequate and valid. The point whether such a notice was actually served upon the defendant does not at present arise. These questions were taken up at a preliminary stage and answered against the plaintiff by the learned District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, who dismissed the suit; and hence the present appeal. 2. In the action, the plaintiff sued for declaration that a certain Bill, which subsequently became an Act, was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature, and that it offended against the provisionsof Section 299, Government of India Act, 1935, and alsothat in any event the bill in question did not applyto the Estate of the plaintiff which was held undera special contract with the Government of India.The Province of Assam was a party defendant tothe suit actually came to be instituted on 28-11-1949. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Narayan Deb and ors. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-16-1953
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. In these applications the petitioners have prayed that pending the hearing of the appeals to the Supreme Court the Opposite Party be restrained from taking steps to take over possession of the estate of the petitioners under the Assam Management of Estates Act, 1949. The appeals to which these applications relate have been consolidated and leave to appeal has been granted by this Court in view of the fact that various constitutional questions were involved. The petitioner now makes the prayer aforesaid on the strength of Order 45, Rule 13(2)(d), Civil P. C. It is obvious that Order 45, Rule 13 (2) (d) has no application to the case. The Rule in question runs as follows: 'The Court may, if it thinks fit, on special cause shown by any party interested in the suit, or otherwise appearing to the Court, place any party seeking the assistance of the Court under such conditions or give such other direction respecting the subject-matter of the appeal, as it thinks fit, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Malakar Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. This jail appeal has been filed by Ramesh Chandra Malakar against his conviction and sentence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. for 4 years R.I. passed by the Sessions Judge Agartala in his Court's Sessions trial No. 7 of 1952.2. The facts of the case are simple enough. It is alleged that on 21.9.1950 in the evening the complainant and his brother P.W. (?) wanted to errect a Bundh to bring down water to their fields which was to flow through the land of the accused. The accused did not allow it, though told by the complainant that it would do him no harm. Just then, the complainant started to call the Sardar of the village to come over and settle the matter. He had left his younger brother Jogendra on the spot. He had hardly gone a little distance when he heard shouts of Jogendra that he was being assaulted by the accused. The complainant returned to see that his old father who had by this time intervened, was being given blows by the accused. He himself saw th...
Tag this Judgment!Suroj Mia and ors. Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-11-1953
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.1. The Sessions Judge, Tripura, has referred this motion under Section 438, Cr.P.C. with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence under Section 494, I.P.C. passed on the accused Suroj Mia, Abdul Hamid, Habibullah & Siddio petitioners by Sri S.M. Ali, Magistrate 1st Class be set aside on the ground that the girl Anjuma had already divorced Abdul Majid complainant and therefore her marriage with Suroj Mia after the divorce does not bring home an offence under Section 494, I.P.C. It is alleged in the complaint that Suroj Mia married her with the help of other accused.2. Two registered documents have been produced by the accused in this connection. One is a kabilnama dated 3.7.47 executed at the time of marriage between Abdul Majid complainant and Anjuma Bibi. By means of para. 4 of this kabilnama, Abdul Majid delegated the powers of divorce to his wife if among other conditions he married elsewhere and caused unhappiness to Anjuma.3. There is yet another regi...
Tag this Judgment!Assam Fisheries Farms and Industries Ltd. Vs. the Development Commissi ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-11-1953
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. These two applications relate to the same matter and are directed against an order, dated 28-5-51, passed by the Development Commissioner, Shillong. The first application purports to be under Article 226, while the second one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the parties being common to both. In these applications, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature, of a certiorari or mandamus on the Development Commissioner to vacate his order dated 28-5-51, as also for another writ on the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong to vacate his order passed in pursuance of the order of the Development Commissioner making settlement of certain fisheries with, opposite party, No. 3, Lohit Chandra Hazarika. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of Prohibition against the said Opposite Party prohibiting him from fishing in the fishery in question.2. The relevant facts alleged are that the Deputy Commissioner Nowgong advertised for settlement of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assam Company Ltd. Vs. the State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-1953
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a petition of the Assam Company Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By this petition, Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition, have been applied for. A Rule was issued on this petition to the opposite parties to show cause why the impugned orders should not be quashed. 2. The facts stated in the petition are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the Cherideo Purbut Tea Estate. In 1947, the undeveloped lands included in the Tea Estate were brought under cultivation in furtherance of the Grow More Food Scheme of the Provincial Government. In 1950, an area covering about 400 acres of undeveloped lands was requisitioned by the Government of Assam under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act 25 of 1948). This area has not yet been allotted, settled or otherwise utilised by the Government for the purposes of the Act. On 15-10-51, the S. D. O., Sibsagar, passed an order requisitioning another ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanasyam Das and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-1953
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This order shall cover Civil Rules 69/52, 75/52 85/52 and 40/52. 2. All these Rules are directed against the orders purporting to have been passed by Sri J.J.M. Nichols Roy, Minister in charge of Excise, in the capacity of Excise Appellate Authority, Assam and in the exercise of powers conferred on him by notification No. MEX. 120/43/1 dated 15-6-1948. 3. The petitioners in their respective cases have assailed the validity of his orders on several grounds. One ground of attack is common to all. In my opinion, these rules tan be disposed of on this ground alone. 4. It is contended that the notification of 15-6-1948 by which the Governor of Assam appointed the Minister in charge of Excise as the authority to entertain appeals and review decisions in matters arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in Schedule B to the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act (Act 4 of 1948) in supersession of Revenue Department Notification No. R. T. 22/47/29 d...
Tag this Judgment!Sandhiram Mahajan and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-1953
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This petition arises out of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup with a view to evicting petitioners from their 'Khutis' in Marasarudiya and Gardhiyarchar which form parts-of a Grazing Reserve. 2. A professional grazing reserve known as Kurihamari Grazing Reserve is situate in Mouza Pub-Barkhetri within the Nalbari Circle in the Kamrup District. This grazing reserve admittedly is an unclassed state forest. The case for the petitioners is that they are professional graziers and they have been grazing their cattle in the Khurihamari grazing reserve with their Khutis in Marasarudiya and Gardhiyarchar areas of the reserve for 10 or 12 years. The Deputy Commissioner on 1-5-1343 earmarked those areas for their 'Khutis' They have been paying grazing fees from year to year and obtained permit also for the current year which commenced from 1-7-1952. The permits admittedly are for grazing In Khurihamari Professional Grazing Reser...
Tag this Judgment!Asar Ali and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-04-1953
Ram Labhaya, J.1. All five appellants namely Abdul Latif, Asar Ali, Magar Ali, Ahmed Ali and Afiruddin alias Aflluddin were found guilty and convicted under Section 396, Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to transportation for life. Along with them 3 others namely Jabed Ali, Mia Hussain and Akas Ali were similarly convicted and sentenced. They have not appealed. The appellants preferred a joint appeal through the jail authorities. At the hearing two out of the appellants namely Asar Ali and Magar Ali were represented by Mr. Sen. He has presented to us the case of all the five appellants.2. The trial was with the aid of. a jury, which returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. A separate charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code was framed against 3 of the accused. The verdict of the jury was that they were entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt on this charge.3. The house of one Musraf Hazi in Dakhin Beluati in Mouza Hozai at a distance of 7 miles from Jamunamuk...
Tag this Judgment!Kissenlal Agarwalla Vs. Nagarmal Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-03-1953
Deka, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P, C. by the Sessions Judge, U, A. D. for setting aside the order passed by the First Class Magistrate Jorhat on 15.12.51 directing the restoration of possession to the two contending parties of two parcels of land as defined in the order. The main ground for reference is that there was no express order that the Magistrate drawing up the proceeding was satisfied at any stage that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between the parties or that the Magistrate applied his mind to this aspect of the case. In the words of the learned Sessions Judge,the initial order having been illegal and without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings in the court of the said learned Magistrate and his successor in office must be considered to have been illegal and void.2. In my opinion, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15-12-51 is bad on two grounds and has to be set aside. The first ground is that there was no complia...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›