Guwahati Court May 1981 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.
Omega Advertising Agency Vs. the State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-28-1981
K.N. Saikia, J.1. M/s. Omega Advertising Agency, a proprietorial concern, through its sole proprietor Shri Shankar Rajkhowa in this writ petition impugns two orders of the Assam State Electricity Board dated 30-10-1980 splitting its classified advertisements between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and appointing the latter for handling those for offices and projects in Zones other than Lower Assam Zone.2. The Assam State Electricity Board (Shortly ASEB) issued a notice in the Assam Tribune on 20-9-1980 (Annexure-B) as follows:'Sealed offers are invited from reputed Agencies for handling of ASEB advertisements (other than display advertisements) initially for a period of two consecutive years beginning Nov. 1, 1980, under the following terms and conditions:(a) The Agency must have its Registered Head Office within the State of Assam and Office/offices in city/cities outside the State.(b) The Agency must be financially sound and must be capable of furnishing in favour of the ASE...
U Saul Dkhar Vs. State of Meghalaya
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-26-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. This Criminal Reference arises out of a letter received from the Sessions Judge, Shillong. Meghalaya wherein the learned Judge apologetically pointed out that at the hearing of Criminal Misc. Case No. 67 of 1978 U, Saul Dkhar v. State of Meghalaya on 30-3-79 by the Full Bench of this Court (since reported in 1979 Cri LJ 1418): (AIR 1979 NOC 144) the amendment made to Section 326 of the Cr. P. C, 1973 by Act 45 of 1978 was not brought to the notice of the Court and accordingly the Court held that 'in a Sessions trial for offence of murder in the tribal areas of Meghalaya, the Deputy Commissioner and/or Additional D. C. cannot act on the evidence recorded by their predecessors.' The learned Sessions Judge indirectly pointed out that the trio decedent of the Full Bench decision would cause great hardship and injury to the litigants, as the officers are continuously transferred within a short span of time and in most of the cases they are transferred before completion of r...
Mudhan Payeng Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-22-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. The appellant is an indigent defended throughout at the expense of the State. He belongs to the Backward Classes and is an illiterate. He has been convicted Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. It is very difficult to narrate the prosecution story as different stories stem out at different stages. The first version of the prosecution story emanating from 'the Ejahar' is that on 20-6-1975 in the evening an altercation took place between the deceased Lashiram Mili and the accused Gangaram Payeng over damages caused to the standing paddy of the deceased by Gangaram's pigs. It was alleged that while Lashiram was returning home from his field accompanied by some boys the accused 'lay in wait' by the road side, under the cover of darkness, jumped out and assaulted Lashiram with a lathi on his head. The boys who accompanied Lashiram raised alarm. Hearing the alarm the sons of the deceased P.W. 2 Mome Mili and P.W. 3 Budai Mili and P, W. 5 Musst....
Rabindradhar Barua and ors. Vs. Collector of Kamrup
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-22-1981
Saikia, J. 1. This land acquisition first appeal is from the reference Court judgment in Misc. Case No. 27 of 1966 arising out of L. A. Case No. 24 of 1959. 2. The appellants' inherited land measuring 75B 3K 15L under Dag Nos. 208, 210, 212, 213 and 214 covered by K. P. Patta No. 54 of Noonmati village. Panbari Mouza, Gauhati was acquired for construction of the Railway Marshalling Yard (Project No. IIB) in L. A. Case No, 24 of 1959 wherein the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', bearing No. RLA.4/60/59, was issued on 8-10-1961 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, bearing No. RLA. 4/60/60, was issued on 8-10-1961. The possession of the land was taken on 4-2-1960 even prior to the Notification. The Collector classified thereout 14B. 2K. OL. as homestead and 1B. 1K. 15L. as cultivable land. There were four standing houses and huts and a large number of standing trees, as shown in Ext. 1, and 9 tanks, some with f...
Ramlal Lohar Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-21-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. The appellant is an indigent for which he has received 'free legal aid' during his trial as well as in the appeal before us. The appellant is a peasant. He has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo R. I. for one month more.2. The Proccution story in short runs thus.3. On 26-1-75 Bipin Bhumiz went out fishing, never to return. On the following morning he was found dead in a field with four punctured injuries. The first information report was lodged on 27-1-75 at 6-30 p.m. The form of the F.I.R. does not show that it was received at any place other than the police station. However there is a note below the F.I.R. that the ejahar was received at the place of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the accused, for reasons unknown and unexplained, went to P.W. 5 Dhonu Murari in the evening of the date of occurrence and voluntarily made a statement that he had killed 'an old man'. ...
Dinabandhu Deva Bhagawati Vs. Nirada Bala Devi and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-21-1981
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17-8-1979 passed by Shri N. C. Barua, Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Title Suit No. 4 of 1974 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the grounds, (a) that in respect of the same causes of action the plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 7 of 1973 but he withdrew from the suit under Order 23 of the Civil P. C. for short 'the Code', without obtaining liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the suit; (b) the plaintiff did not make any averment in his plaint that he had withdrawn the suit with the permission of the Court with liberty to institute a subsequent suit and, (c) the plaintiff did not pay the cost of Rs. 50/- awarded by the Court while permitting the plaintiff to withdraw 'from Title Suit No. 7 of 1973, a condition precedent for institution of the subsequent suit.2. Order 6 deals with 'pleadings' generally. The term 'pleadings' means formal allegations by the parties of their respective ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mrs. Marcia E. Dutta
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-1981
Hansaria, J. 1. Mrs Marcia E. Dutta is by birth an American lady. She married Shri B. K. Dutta and the couple started living at Digboi after Shri Dutta got a job in the Assam Oil Company (A. O. C.) as the Senior Engineer in the Marketing Division. This was in Feb. 1965. Marcia herself was appointed in Mar. 1965 as the Confidential Secretary to the then Marketing Manager. She was subsequently confirmed and by 1969 she was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 925.00 per month. The couple came to be invited to a dinner in the Military Officers Mess of Lekhapani Camp. The dinner was due on 14-1-69 at 8. P. M. A few days before that Col. Sopti and Capt. Patel met the couple at their bungalow in Digboi and personally requested them to accept the invitation. As it fell on Bihu day, the couple was rather reluctant, but on being pressed and on being stated that since the Army was doing a lot of business with A. O. C., an exception would be taken if they would not go to the party and meet among other...
Mahendra Kalita and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. We propose to dispose of these three writ applications by a common order. All the petitioners have been arrested and detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, for short 'the Act'. The first point urged is that the copies of the documents and materials to which references had been made in the grounds of detention of the petitioners were not supplied to the detenus, such documents and materials were relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds and these were taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of detention. Mr. P. G. Barua, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged some more points, however they require no consideration as the petitions must succeed on the first point itself.2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a line of pronouncements that the documents and materials relied upon in the grounds which had been taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of deten...
Pijush Majumdar Vs. Ramesh Nama and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-14-1981
S.M. Ali, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-8- 1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Belonia in Criminal Case No. G. Rule 135 of 1977, giving consent Under Section 321, Cr. P. C. to the withdrawal from prosecution moved by the Asst. Public Prosecutor, Belonia.2. The facts of the case are that Premchand Majumdar instituted an information at the Belonia Police Station on 20-9-1977 alleging that his brother Pijush Majumdar was travelling from Agartala to Belonia in a public bus on 19-9-77 by taking his seat in the front row of the bus stand that a girl and a boy were also accompanying him by his side. The boy got down at a place on the way and so also did the girl passenger after some time. The girl alighted at a place named Nalua. Premchand also got down there. While he was taking tea at a stall at Nalua Bazar a person named Santi Mahajan of village Abhaynagar under the Belonia P.S. approached him and enquired from him as to whether'he had o...
Abdul Latif Vs. Akil Zaman
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-06-1981
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. The plaintiff petitioner in this Civil Revision challenges the order dt. 30-5-80 passed by the Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati in Misc. (J) case No. 13 of 1980 on the defendant-respondent's application for revival of Title Suit No, 44 of 1979, requiring him to deposit cost of Rs. 250/- by 7-6-1980; and the order dt. 3-7-1980 vacating the earlier order of dismissal of the Misc. (J) case. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner's Title Suit No. 44 of 1979 was decreed ex parte on 25-2-80. The Misc. (J) case No, 13 of 1980 was registered upon the application by the defendant-respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree. By order dt. 30-5-80 the defendant respondent was required to deposit the cost of Rs. 250/- by 7-6-80 when only final order would be passed. The defendant-respondent failed to do so, and on 10-8-80 he filed an application praying for extension of time to deposit the amount. It appears that no decisive order was passed on this application. On 3-7-8...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›