Guwahati Court May 1961 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.
Teok Tea Estate Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-25-1961
H. Deka, C.J.1. This matter has come to me out of a difference between my two learned brothers.2. The matter initially arose out of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quashing the award given by the presiding officer, labour court, Assam, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. An industrial dispute was raised by the workmen of Teok Tea Estate, represented by the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha, over the alleged demotion of Mugeswar Tati, a labourer engaged as a fitter-mate by the management of the Teok Tea Estate at the material time, and the dispute was referred to the labour court by the Government Notification No. CLR 262-59-6 of 25 May 1959 on the following terms:(1) Whether the demotion of Mugeswar Tati is justified ?(2) If not, is he entitled to the post of fitter-mate, or any other relief in lieu thereof ?The case of the workman Mugeswar Tati was tha...
Niranjan Bhuyan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-24-1961
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. The petitioners Were convicted by the first class Magistrate Sadar in G.R. case No. 579 of 1957 under Section 147 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge proved unsuccessful. Hence they have come up in revision, Three other persons who had also been charged under Section 147 I.P.C., before the Magistrate were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by him.2. The case against the petitioners was that they along with 5 others went to the Nirala Restaurant on the night of 22.2.1957 and took food, that when the bill was prepared by P.W. 2 Nanigopal Roy and presented to them by the server P.W. 3, Prafulla Chandra Saha, they got furious considering the bill to be exorbitant and tried to leave the Restaurant without making any payment. When P.W. 2, who was in charge of the cash and bills asked them to make payment, they assaulted P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and also the cook and started throwing away chairs and tables and radio se...
Anil Kumar Das Vs. Sukumar De
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-23-1961
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. This is an application under Section 526 Cri.P.C. for transfer of the criminal case C.R. No. 242 of 1960 from the file of Sri P.K. Roy, Magistrate to some other Magistrate. The petitioner's application to the Sessions Judge under Section 528 was rejected by him.2. The petitioner was the accused in the said criminal case. When the case was taken up for hearing on 31.8.1960 the respondent-complainant was present with 6 P.Ws and he wanted to cite two more P.Ws not mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner stated that if further P.Ws were being permitted, he would like to have the evidence of all the P.Ws together. But the Court ordered that the P.Ws present may be examined first and an opportunity will be given for citing fresh P.Ws later. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a petition that all the P.Ws should be examined on the same day as otherwise he would be prejudiced. But the Court rejected the prayer.3. Thereupon the petitioner intimated the Court that he...
Cachar Cha Sramik Union and anr. Vs. Chandighat Tea Estate and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-1961
H. Deka, C.J.1. These are three applications--the former two under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the third under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India--and since the same point or points arise for decision, these rules are treated as analogous and the same judgment will cover all the three applications.2. The facts relating to the oases are slightly different and they are as follows.3. Civil Rule No. 111 of 1960 filed by the Oachar Cha Sramik Union and one Atul Chandra Ankara is in regard to the minimum wages claimed by Atul Chandra Ankara, who made his application on 8 July 1957, under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act claiming back-wages as a member of the staff on the allegation that he was entitled to the minimum wages prescribed under the Government notification No. O.L.R. 352/51/56 of 11 March 1952. The claim up to 8 February 1957 was considered to be barred. The employer contested that the petitioner wa...
Wangkheimayum Kulabidhu Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-1961
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.1. This is a revision against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners in Criminal Case No 44-B of 1960 and in Criminal Appeal No 48 of 1960 by the Sessions Judge under Sections 188 and 143 I.P.C. The sentences of one month's S.I. under Section 188 I.P.C. and six month's R.I. under Section 143 I.P.C. were reduced by the appellate Court to 15 clays S.I. and 2 months' R.I. respectively.2. Now in revision, it is contended that the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was not duly promulgated and hence there was no violation of the said order and so no offence under Section 188 I.P.C. was committed and further that even granting that there Was proper promulgation of the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., it was not proved by the prosecution, that the violation of the order caused or tended to cause annoyance to any person lawfully employed and hence the petitioners were wrongly convicted under Section 188 I.P.C. It was also pointed out that as the violation was said ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›