Guwahati Court April 1984 Judgments

Tube Investment of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Everest Cycles Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

Saikia, J. 1. The petitioners sold and delivered goods to the respondent company worth Rs. 1,77,425.84 pursuant to their orders but the latter did not pay the value. The goods being entrusted to the respondent company's agent and carriers, the documents of title were sent through bank, but the respondent company did not pay the value of the goods into the bank and the documents of title were returned to the petitioners dishonoured by the bank. By its letter dated March 30, 1977, the respondent company admitted the entire liability and proposed to pay the amount but having failed or neglected to pay, the petitioners filed a suit being C.S. No. 176/77 in the High Court Judicature at Madras, against the respondent company for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,77,425084 towards principal and Rs. 59,794.16 towards interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum from the date of invoice. Thus, the total claim was Rs. 2,38,220 and further interest from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. In th...

Banowarilal Tibrewalla Vs. State of Assam and anr

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1985CriLJ1148

1. Who is to be blamed if food-adulterations escape prosecution or conviction? The law or the investigator/prosecutor? This, is the core question in issue in this case involving interpretation of some of the tricky, though not tanned, provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the Act.2. However, I may first deal with two peripheral issues which obstruct my entry upon the core question. According to learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, Mr. S. R. Bhattacharjee, I must not hear this application because it is beyond my jurisdictional competence. His further submission is that the application is premature. Both these aspects are considered in a recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan) and according to me both objections have no merit. It is, however, necessary for me to state briefly the facts leading to this application to show that these objections are futile and also to answer the core question.3. On 7-9-1978...

Pradip Kumar Bhowmick Vs. Smt. Minu Bhowmick

Court: Guwahati

T.N. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of the opposite party. He has come to this Court challenging validity of the order passed on 30-5-81 under Section 126, Cr. P.C. by which his application for setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed under Section 125 at the behest of his wife, the opposite party was rejected. On 4-4-80 learned Magistrate heard the case ex'parte and ordered the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- to the wife and Rs. 50/- to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the application. He also directed that the petitioner should pay the arrear in two equal instalments.2. The application for maintenance was filed on 6-4-79 wherein the opposite party claimed that she was the legally married wife of the petitioner and during their wedlock she gave birth to a female child who was at that time one year old. She alleged that the petitioner had driven her out and has neglected to maintain her and the minor daughter. She also stated ...

Banowarilal Tibrewalla Vs. State of Assam and anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1985CriLJ1148

ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Who is to be blamed if food-adulterations escape prosecution or conviction? The law or the investigator/prosecutor? This, is the core question in issue in this case involving interpretation of some of the tricky, though not tanned, provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the Act.2. However, I may first deal with two peripheral issues which obstruct my entry upon the core question. According to learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, Mr. S. R. Bhattacharjee, I must not hear this application because it is beyond my jurisdictional competence. His further submission is that the application is premature. Both these aspects are considered in a recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in : 1983CriLJ159 (Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan) and according to me both objections have no merit. It is, however, necessary for me to state briefly the facts leading to this application to show that these objections are futile and also to answe...

Padmeswar Baruah and anr. Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

B.L. Hansaria, J.1. Poison kills a man; opium kills a race, a civilization, are that too imperceptibly so far as the victims are concerned. It is because of this that every enlightened Government has been showing its concern with the menace of opium consumption, which, however, is kept intact by the operators of the underworld, who for the sake of their fabulous profit persist in indulging in this social crime and smuggle the commodity in such a way that only strict vigilance can save the society. The present is one such case.2. Herein two innocuous looking crates (boxes) had been taken delivery of on 22.8.72 from the office of M/s. Bharat Roadways Corporation, Jorhat when the excise staff caught Padmeswar Barua, one of the petitioners before this Court, and one Badan in front of the office. One Dimbeswar was also taken care of, so were the two crates, on opening which it was found that each had 51 packets each containing 500 grams of opium. So, the total haul was of 51 Kg. The next d...

State of Assam Vs. Siba Prasad Bora and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.L. Hansaria, J.1. The opposite parties, 4 (four) in number, were committed to the court of Session to face a trial Under Section 302/34, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, has come to the conclusion that no charge could be framed against the accused-opposite parties under that section of law. Instead, a charge Under Section 323, Penal Code, was framed against the accused-opposite parties and the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a trial as provided by law. The State has come up in revision as the impugned order amounts to discharge Under Section 302/34, IPC.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is founded on, if I may say so with respect, a misconception that the death in question was caused due to any particular assault, which has been repeatedly described in the impugned order as a fatal blow. This would be apparent if we look at the post-mortem report which does not show any particular injury as such to be resp...

State of Assam Vs. Basanta Burman and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, C.J. (Acting) 1. Register this application as a separate Misc. Case. 2. The State of Assam has filed this ' application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C. P. C. for treating pro forma respondents 4, 5 and 6 as co-appellants. The State has prayed that the aforesaid pro forma respondents may be added as co-appellants instead of pro forma respondents. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 are Inspector of Police; Superintendent of' Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, respectively. The suit was instituted against the State of Assam as well as the three police officers for malicious prosecution. Mr. P. Prasad, the learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the suit was instituted against the State as well as the public servants and the cases of these defendants were conducted by the Govt. Advocate at Tezpur. However, the learned Government Advocate, Tezpur could not file written statement as the prayer for adjournment was rejected. Mr. P. Prasad submits that the decree was rendered on the basis...

Ratneswar Das Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T.N. Singh, J.1. On 11.7.1983 the petitioner was arrested at his home at Kurua in connection inter alia with Mangaldoi P.S. Case Nos. 403 and 404 of 1983 and lodged in Jail After he was released on bail the Police rearrested him on 16.9.83 in front of the Jail gate. This was done pursuant to an order passed on 14.9.83 by the second respondent District Magistrate, Mangaldoi; under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 for short the Act The grounds of detention were served on him on 18.9.83. Thereafter the petitioner came to this Court and obtained Rule nisi on 5.10.83. The detaining authority (Respondent No. 2) filed a return on 8.11.83 but on 7.11.83 the first respondent (State of Assam) also, through its Under Secretary in the Political 'A' Department filed an affidavit in opposition. After the third respondent (Union of India) filed its affidavit in opposition on 21.12.83, a counter affidavit, in reply to all three returns, was filed on behalf of the detenu on 30.1.1984.2. Th...