Guwahati Court April 1980 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.
indrajit Baruah Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
K.N. Saikia, J.1. Heard the learned Solicitor-General for the Union of India and the State of Assam. Heard Mr. P. G. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respectfully perused the order dated 16-4-1980 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4377 of 1980. Perused the impugned order dated 7-4-1980 granting ex parte stay in Civil Rule No. 182 of 1980,2. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 182 of 1980 impugns the two notifications, namely, PLA. 20/80/19 and PLA, 20/80/20 dated 5-4-1980. The petitioner also challenges the vires of the Assam Act 19 of 1955, the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955, and the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 as amended by Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers (Amendment) Act 1972, on which the two impugned notifications are based. The following are the texts of the two notifications:'No. PLA. 20/80/19. -- Whereas a situation prejudicial to the integrity and security of the State by promotion of...
The Assam Tea Corporation Ltd. Vs. Narayan Singh and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
K. Lahiri, J. 1. Palpable mistake had been committed by the officers of the Court wherefor the decree had been wrongly drawn in Title Suit No. 92 of 1977. The plaintiff sued for declaration of right, title, interest and delivery of khas possession, in respect of 198 sft. of land equivalent to 1.37 lechas covered by Dag No. 558 (part) in Patta No. 59/3, 63/29, 90/186 of Fee Simple Grant Cinnamara, Mouza Garamur. The suit was decreed. But while drawing up the decree, the area of the suit land was wrongly shown as 160 sft. i. e. equivalent to 1.11 lechas. All other descriptions reflected in the decree were correct except in the mistake in the area. The error was detected by the plaintiff and it made an application under Section 152 C. P. C. but the same was turned down by the learned Munsil, on the assumption that he had no jurisdiction to rectify the mistake. Section 152 reads as follows:-- '152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.-- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgmen...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›