Guwahati Court February 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.
Hiranand Agarwalla Vs. Area Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. Feeling aggrieved at the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter 'the Act', this Court has been approached in revision to quash the proceeding. The point urged is that in view of the denial of the right to the petitioner Under Section 13(2) of the Act, the continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court inasmuch as the trial is bound to end in acquittal in view of the aforesaid denial.2. What happened was that some samples of wheat were collected on 27-11-75 as would appear from the offence report. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample did not conform to the standard, a complaint was lodged on 25-3-76, when an order of summoning the accused was passed fixing 22-4-76. The order sheet shows that the summonses were not taken out for that date and so another date was fixed for appearance of the accused. The date so fixed was 14-6-76 on which d...
Khoisnam Robindra Singh Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
T.N. Singh, J.1. The petitioner challenges his continued detention pursuant to an order passed on 26-11-83 Under Section 3(3) of National Security Act, 1980, for short the Act, by the District Magistrate (Central) Manipur. The admitted position, however, is that he was first taken into custody by C.R.P.F. personnel in the early morning of 12-5-83 and then handed over to the police the same day in connection with FIR Case No. 100(5)783 of. Singjamei P. S. whereupon he was remanded to judicial custody. While he was thus incarcerated a prayer was made on 6-7-83 for his arrest by the Investigating Officer of FIR Case No. 168(3)781 of Imphal P. S. to the Court to allow the petitioner to be arrested in connection with the said case. The prayer was allowed. On 9-8-83 a similar prayer was made by the concerned Investigating Officer in connection with FIR Case No. 44(7)781 of Yairipok P.S. case which was also allowed. However, he was granted bail by the court in all three cases and his case i...
Deo Narayan Goala, (Deceased by L.R.) and ors. Vs. Jagadish Pandit
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
T.S. Misra, C.J.1. A title suit filed by the decree-holder opposite party against the judgment-debtor petitioner was decreed on 4th March, 1968. That decree was put under execution. It appears that in Execution Case No. 14 of 1978 the judgment-debtor filed a petition No. 49/11 praying for the stay of the execution till the harvesting of the crop was done. The decree-holder opposed that petition of the judgment-debtor. The learned Munsiff executing the decree rejected the application of the judgment-debtor. He also rejected the objection of the decree-holder on the ground that the petition filed by the judgment-debtor had become redundant. The learned Munsiff also passed a further order in the following terms :'D. H. took no other steps for proceeding with execution. Hence the case is dismissed for default.'2. The above order was passed by the learned Munsiff on 11th July, 1980. The decree-holder filed an application No. 92/14 before the learned Munsiff praying that the said order date...
Y. Iboyaima Singh Vs. Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal, Imphal and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Dr. T.N. Singh, J. 1. The writ petitioner has challenged in this application the interpretation of Section 97 of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976, for short 'the Act' rendered by the Presiding Officer of the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal (Respondent No. 1), while dismissing in limine the appeal preferred by him, by order passed on 12-1-84, in Tribunal Petition No. 31/Tribl. dated 11-1-1984. The provision may, therefore, be quoted at the outset : 'Any party aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees under the last proceeding section, or an order passed under Section 95 may, within two months from the date of the decision or order, appeal to the Tribunal.' 2. Respondent No. 5 is the State of Manipur and respondents 1 and 2 are its instrumentalities. Respondents 3 and 4 are individuals. Learned Senior Govt. Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 5 accepting notice of the application. We do not consider it necessary to...
Ratish Rai Vs. Mohesh Singh
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
S.M. Ali, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. J.K. Barua on behalf of the accused-petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. S.N. Medhi for the opposite party.2. The opposite party submitted a complaint petition before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. Tuensang against the present petitioner Ratish Rai to the effect that both the complainant and the accused jointly purchased from (he Army at Gauhati a truck (Nissan) at a cost of Rs. 23,000/- and that the truck was repaired at Jorhat at a cost of Rs. 7090/--antl that the complainant paid half of the money involved in purchasing the truck and in repairing it. The vehicle was registered in the name of Raju Rai, son of the accused and was numbered NLI-524. It is alleged that the accused Ratish Rai executed a deed/agreemenl in presence of respectable persons at Tuensang on 9-7-82 to the effect that both the complainant and the accused formed a partnership in the vehicle. On 1-9-82 as the complainant approached the accused and wanted to know about the prof...
Siraj Ali and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
K.N. Saikia, J.1. The petitioners impugn their conviction Under Section 447/379 IPC and sentence of 10 (ten) days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default simple imprisonment for 15 more days. They were prosecuted for their alleged trespassing upon and reaping paddy away from the field of complainant-opposite party No. 2 on 23rd Aug. 1976. Tried in warrant procedure, they were charged Under Sections 447 and 379 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty stating that they had bona fide claim of right. The prosecution examined six witnesses and submitted some documents while the defence did not examine any witness but submitted some documents in support of bona fide claim of right. On the basis of the evidence on record the trial court convicted the petitioners, as above and their appeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge holding that the learned Magistrate elaborately discussed the facts and law and was fully justified in holding the petitioners guilty for the off...
Dhrubajyoti Bhuyan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
K. Lahiri, J.1. The focal points of attack, in this habeas corpus application, centre around Ground Nos. 4 and 5, which we extract hereinbelow:4. The subject and his aforesaid associate hurled one of said explosive devices on 19-5-83 at about 7 P.M. on A.T. Road near truck stand at Jorhat town on the car of Dr. Tusheswar Dutta of Jorhat town while he was returning home after marketing, for the reason that Dr. Tusheswar Dutta a renowned physician of Jorhat town was advocating for holding of election and he is a treasurer of Jorhat D.C.I. This refers to Jorhat P. S. Case No. 449/83 Under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act.5. On 8-8-83 the subject and his aforesaid associate planted explosive devices on a seat wrapped up in a newspaper just before the first show of the Cinema Hall was over. It was detected at about 8.05 P.M. and it was brought out but the explosive devices exploded immediately after that outside the hall and as a result 2 persons sustained injuries. The motive of this...
Bireswar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Smt. Sukla Guha
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
T.S. Misra, C.J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 29th July, 1980 passed by the Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, hereinafter called the Act. The respondent had sought to deposit the rent under Subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Act. That was opposed by the present petitioners. The learned Munsiff passed the following order on that application : 'In view of the above in my opinion I have no power under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act to refuse a petitioner from depositing the rent in court. Under the circumstances money deposited under the above provision of the Act is only a measure for deciding whether the tenant is a defaulter or not. The parties are at liberty to withdraw the money on application made to this Court. With the above observation I dispose of this case.'2. The landlords being aggrieved by this order of the learned Sadar Munsiff has filed the instant revision petition under Sect...
Ravindra C. Mehta Vs. Musta HuseIn Karam HuseIn and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner accused being aggrieved by the process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 356/82 for an offence punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. has moved this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the process on the ground that no offence of cheating is prima facie disclosed.2. The complaint alleges that the petitioner who is doing the business of coke and coal in the name of Selected Coal Company and his brother Mohmad Yasim Karamhussain also does the same business in the name of A. Star Coal Depot. Both of them have one common office. The accused is the Managing Director of Bhalkiya Mills Ltd. The complainant has been supplying the coal to different Mills in Ahmedabad as per their orders. It is alleged that the petitioner accused had promised payments of the price of the coal within 15 days and on that assurance the complainant was induced to act and deliver the coal to the Mill Company on 9th and 10...
Dhaneswar Karji Vs. Umesh Chandra Choudhury and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
T.S. Misra, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are these. The petitioner has filed a Title Suit No. 318 of 1983 in the Court of Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati for declaration and permanent injunction maintaining that they are the shareholders and duly elected members of the Executive Committee of Pub-Barigog Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Samity'. An application for interim injunction was also filed along with the suit. The learned Munsiff granted an ex parte injunction which was subsequently vacated by him. The petitioner then preferred an appeal in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati and filed an application for interim injunction. The appellate Court below stayed the operation of the impugned order till 22nd Jan., 1984. It seems that the case could not be taken up on 22nd Jan., 1984, because it was Sunday and the Courts were closed. Hence the record was placed before the appellate Court below on 23rd Jan., 1984 whereu...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›