Guwahati Court January 1984 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.
PrabIn Kumar Gogoi Vs. Deputy Secy. to the Govt. of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-31-1984
T.N. Singh, J.1. An order of detention Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, shortly the Act, was passed against the petitioner on 18-7-83. He was, however, taken into custody on 8-11-83. Thereafter, a representation was made by him on 10-11-83 to the State Govt. as well as to the Central Govt. At both levels the representation was considered and rejected. The matter was referred by the State Govt. to the Advisory Board for its opinion and on receipt of the opinion of the Board on 21-11-83. The State Govt. confirmed the order of detention on 26-11-83. Thereafter, on 15-12-83 the petitioner came to this Court challenging his detention.2. From a perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that the prejudicial activities attributed to the petitioner relate to a period ranging between 4-4-83 and 23-5-43. The detention order was passed with a veiw to prevent the petitioner from acting-in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is not necessary to refer in ...
State of Assam Vs. Puranmal Agarwalla
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Saikia, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment of acquittal of the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. shortly 'the Act.2. The District Food Inspector of Jorhat purchased 450 grams of 'Kashmiri Mirchi Powder' from the respondent's shop 'Bisudha Masala Bhandar' for the purpose of analysis and sent one pun of the sample to the Public Analyst who reported it to be of adulterated chillies powder which wits artificially dyed with prohibited coal tar dye prosecuted, the respondent was charged Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty.3. At the trial, the prosecution examined 3 while the defence examined 2 witnesses including the accused-respondent himself. As the respondent challenged the report of the Public Analyst, the sample produced by the Food Inspector in Court was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta Under Section 13(2) of the Act who also reported the sample to be adulterated. In his statement ...
Thokchom Gosai Singh Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
N. Ibotombi Singh, J.1. By our short order passed on 23-1-84 we quashed the order of detention as void and ordered the release of the detenu forthwith stating that reasons would follow. We now set out reasons herein below :2. This is an applicat ion under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention dated 6th December. 1983 passed by the District Magistrate. (Imphal) Manipur Under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980. The District Magistrate (Imphal) Manipur passed the impugned order as he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain Mr. Thokchom Thoibam Singh alias Thoi alias Brojen Singh with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The detenu was already under confinement in the Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, being arrested in connection with FIR No. 345(6)/83 IPS Under Sections 121. 121 A. IPC ; Section 25(l)(a) of Arms Act and 13 UA(P) Act. H...
Phanindra Bora and anr. Vs. the Assam Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Saikia, J. 1. As both these applications impugn the same judgment, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Pursuant to a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tinsukia (shortly, the S. D. O.) inviting tenders for settlement of country spirit shops (C. S. shops) of Tinsukia Sub-Division for the period from 1-10-1981 to 31-3-1984, both the petitioners, inter alia, submitted valid tenders for the Margherita C. S. shop and the same were considered by the S. D. O. in consultation with an Advisory Committee and he was pleased to settle the shop with Shri Phanindfa Bora (petitioner of Civil Rule No. 480/82) in preference to Shri Hiranya Konwar (petitioner in Civil Rule 844/82) vide order dt. 29-8-1981. 3. Against the settlement order Shri Hiranya Konwar appealed to the Assam Board of Revenue, shortly, 'the Board', in Case No. 56-E/81 impleading Shri Phanindra Bora as respondent, and the Board by the impugned order dt. 20-5-1982 partly allowing the appea...
All Bengal Transport Agency and ors. Vs. Hare Krishna Banik
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. Jurisdiction to try a case is derived by the courts from a statute; parties cannot confer the same by agreement. The question is : Can they oust the same totally by mutual agreement If so, when? 2. This poser has arisen in the two suits at hand as the defendant, a common carrier and its partners, has taken the stand that as per Clause 16 of the Consignment Note, the Court in Malda alone has jurisdiction to entertain suits in respect of 'all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of goods entrusted for transport.' The suits being for recovery of compensation due to non-delivery of goods booked through the petitioner, the clause is otherwise attracted. The question is whether such a term can prevent any of the parties to approach a Court, other than the one specified, even if that court otherwise has jurisdiction? 3. To clear the deck, let it be said that undisputably the Court of learned Munsiff at Nowgong before whom the suits were filed has jurisdic...
Hitendra Nath Goswami Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-06-1984
N. Ibotombi Singh, J.1. A question of law of general importance about the interpretation of Section 14(1) National Security Act, 1980, read with Section 3(5) of the Act, has been referred by the Division Bench to a larger Bench for determination, the question being 'whether on the report from the State Government under Section 3(5) National Security Act, 1980, the Central Government has the discretion coupled with duty to consider the question of revocation of detention order expeditiously, irrespective of the fact that there is no representation/petition from the detenu to the Central Government for the purpose'.2. In the case out of which the question above has arisen, the detenu, Sri Hitendra Nath Goswami, was detained by order dt. 5.1.83 of the State Government passed, in pursuance of Section 3(2) of the Act. The State Government reported the fact of detention to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made, within 7 days of the order of detent...
State of Assam Vs. Bhawarilal Kundalia and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar acquitting the respondents of charges Under Section 16(I)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly, 'the Act').2. On 12-5-73 the District Food Inspector, Sibsagar, Jorhat collected sample of arhar dahl from the premises of Tolaram Kundalia firm, A.T. Road, Jorhat, which the Public Analyst reported to be coloured with 'Metanil Yellow' which was prohibited. The respondents, who were partners, were charged Under Section 16(I)(a)(i) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty.3. At the trial prosecution examined three witnesses while defence examined none. The.Public Analyst was examined as a Court witness. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents mainly on two grounds, namely, (i) the collection of the sample made by the Food Inspector was illegal, the notice being issued after the sample packets were numbered and a number put on the notice and (ii) the Public Analyst h...
Mohan Chandra Deka Vs. Smt. Himani Talukdar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This civil revision impugns the order dt. 4-2-81 passed-in Money Suit No. 17 of 1979 allowing a petition under Section 10/151 C.P.C. and staying hearing of the suit till disposal of Money Suit No. 79/77. 2. Title Suit No. 17 of 1979, renumbered on transfer as Money Suit No. 33/80, now pending in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati was instituted by the present petitioner against the present opposite party on 22-1-79 for recovery of hire charge of furniture etc. amounting to Rs. 13,500.00 alleging that the opposite party had purchased a printing press from the petitioner and failing to remove it forthwith agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per mensem as hire charge for the room and accessories so long as she could not remove the same, but defaulted in payment That suit is contested by the opposite party stating that she had already instituted Title Suit No. 79/77. 3. The present opposite party filed Title Suit No. 79/77 against the present...
Kshitish Chandra Bhowmick Vs. Harakchand Betala and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-02-1984
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. A suit for eviction filed by the petitioner has been stayed by the learned trial Court till disposal of an appeal arising out of T. S. No. 5/71 which had been filed by pro forma defendant 7 for declaration of 3/5th share in a property, which is the subject matter of the eviction suit also, and for partition by metes and bounds. The stay has been granted on a petition filed under Section 10 of the Civil P.C. by pro forma defendant 7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court in revision. 2. As Section 10 relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the trial, and is also related to the question of res judicata, as would be seen later, any wrong decision would undoubtedly attract the provision of Section 115 of the Code, as to stay a suit where it could not have been amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court Let it therefore, be seen whether the impugned order is maintainable in law or not. 3. The present suit out ...
Bhadreswar Tanti Vs. S.N. Choudhury and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-02-1984
T. S. Misra, C.J.1. Shri Bhadreswar Tanti a practising advocate of this Court and a member of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association has filed the instant petition challenging the appointment of Shri S. N. Choudhury as Additional Advocate General, Assam, and has prayed for a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto on the grounds, inter alia, that respondent 1 is a junior advocate of the Supreme Court and has not practised before this Court and that he has not practised in any other High Court for a period of ten years. It has also been contended that in addition to the Advocate General, respondent 2 has appointed respondent 1 as the Additional Advocate General in complete disregard of the provisions of Article 165 of the Constitution, which according to the petitioner does not empower respondent 2 to appoint more than one Advocate General. Further it has been averred in the petition that while appointing respondent 1 as Additional Advocate General, the State Government has overlooked the p...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›