Guwahati Court May 1984 Judgments

Bhupen Kataki and Etc. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. Whether the authorityconstituted Under Section 138 of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, as amended, has power to stay the operation of an impugned order and if so, under what circumstances? These are precisely the questions we are to answer. We extract the impugned order hereinbelow : 'STATE/TELEGRAM/EXPRESS Dt. 9-12-83. To             CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR,                MAHKUMA PARISHAD TEZPUR PDA 2538372 AAA SRI DANDIRAM NATH PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18TH NOVEMBER '83 PASSED BY YOU FOR SETTLEMENT OF BARGAON SAPTAHIK BAZAR AAA COPY OF APPEAL BEING SENT PER POST FOR SUBMISSION OF DETAILED REPORT AND RECORD IMMEDIATELY AAA CASE WILL BE HEARD BY MINISTER PANCHAYAT ON 31ST DECEMBER '83 AAA MEANTIME IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18TH NOVEMBER '83 STAYED AAA PLEASE DIRECT PETITIONER SRI DANDIRAM NATH AND RESPONDENT SHRI BHUPEN KATAKI TO ATTEND HEARING DEV ...

Mustt. Rahima Khatun and ors. Vs. on the Death of Samser Ali His L. Rs ...

Court: Guwahati

T.S. Misra, C.J.1. This revision is directed against an order dt. 27th Jan. 1983 passed by learned Munsiff No. 1 at Dhubri in Title Execution Case No. 42 of 1981 dismissing the execution proceedings. The facts giving rise to this petition are these.2. The present petitioners filed a Suit No. 393 of 1979 in the court of Munsiff No. 1 Dhubri against one Samser Ali for ejectment from the premises detailed and described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit was contested by Samser Ali. The trial Court decreed the suit whereupon an appeal was filed by Samser Ali in the court of Assistant District Judge, who on appraisal of evidence concurred with the findings reached by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were affirmed. Samser Ali then preferred a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. before this Court being Civil Revision No. 56 of 1982. That revision petition was heard on 3rd Sept....

Smt. P.C. Sainghingi Vs. Vanchuma and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1985CriLJ1704

1. This is a revision against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lungleh, who on receipt of the report submitted by an Advocate on the complaint made by the petitioner ordered that the charges levelled against the accused persons were "not reasonable" and accordingly, they were "freed from any liability of charges", however, the petitioner was allowed to occupy her house and the accused persons were warned not to repeat the performance in future.2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that on November 3, 1980 at 7 a.m. the opposite parties trespassed into her house, put on the screw, occupied her house and turned her out with her minor children. Thereafter, when the petitioner returned back she found the doors of her house locked from outside, and, she could not enter her house. She lodged a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Judicial Branch) Lungleh, against the opposite parties alleging commission of offences. However, learned Magistra...

Smt. P.C. Sainghingi Vs. Vanchuma and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1985CriLJ1704

ORDERK. Lahiri, J.1. This is a revision against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lungleh, who on receipt of the report submitted by an Advocate on the complaint made by the petitioner ordered that the charges levelled against the accused persons were 'not reasonable' and accordingly, they were 'freed from any liability of charges', however, the petitioner was allowed to occupy her house and the accused persons were warned not to repeat the performance in future.2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that on November 3, 1980 at 7 a.m. the opposite parties trespassed into her house, put on the screw, occupied her house and turned her out with her minor children. Thereafter, when the petitioner returned back she found the doors of her house locked from outside, and, she could not enter her house. She lodged a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Judicial Branch) Lungleh, against the opposite parties alleging commission of offences. However...

Baladmari Gobindapur Machmara and Jalbowa Samabay Samity Vs. State of ...

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. What is the contour of power of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to dissolve the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, for short 'the Act' and 'the Rules' framed thereunder Could the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies dissolve the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society on the ground that in the notice served on the members there was no mention that in the meeting of the General Assembly there would be election of members and officers to the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society, albeit it was specifically mentioned that it was an Annual General Assembly or the Annual General Meeting of the General Assembly and Section 32(1) of 'the Act' 'clearly specified that election of the members to the Managing Committee and other Committees could only be transacted in an Annual General Meeting of the Assembly? Was the follow up order of the Deputy Registrar appointing the ad hoc Committee valid a...

The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nilanjan Dutta and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Lahiri, J. 1. Is it necessary for the claimant to establish that there has been no breach of conditions of the policy of insurance by the insured, before obtaining a judgment against the insured and/or the insurers? Upon whom lies the onus of proof that there has been a breach of specified condition of the policy of insurance? In short, the main question for determination is whether the insurer can avoid its liability to satisfy the judgment against person insured in respect of 3rd party risk by taking up a plea that the claimant did not establish that there was no breach of the condition of the policy of insurance. Naturally, the question involves consideration of the provisions contained in Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short 'the Act'. 2. This is an appeal by the insurer Under Section 110D of 'the Act' against an award made by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Gauhati in M.A.C. Case No. 86(K)/72 awarding compensation of Rs. 18,000/- to...

Aphu Chakasang Vs. Kumbha Angami and anr.

Court: Guwahati

T.S. Misra, C.J. 1. This appeal ,is directed against the order dt. 22nd Mar.1977 whereby the appellant was asked 'to vacate the encroached area under DagNo. 30'. ' 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order having been in fact passed by the S. D. C. (Sub-Deputy Collector) is without jurisdiction. The appellant also impugned the said order on merits on various other grounds. 3. We have carefully gone through the records of the case, and have; given our anxious consideration to the matter. Since this appeal is being decided on the question of jurisdiction, we do not intend to examine the merits of the Other contentions raised in the appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute being governed by 'Civil Rute' the S. D. C. had no jurisdiction, authority or power to decide it and pass the impugned order. We find force in this contention. Rule 23 contained in Part IV of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Naga H...

Bibekananda Bhowal Vs. Sontosh Mohan Dev and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T.N. Singh, J.1. On 20-7-73 plaintiff filed a petition under sections 476 and 479 A Cr. P.C. 1898 (for short old Code) in the court of learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, before whom Title Suit No. 5/72 instituted by him was pending. By the said petition the plaintiff prayed that after perusing the evidence recorded in the suit of the 1st defendant (DW. 4) Shri S. M. Dev and DW. 2, Shri Indrajit Dutta Choudhury, and after holding a preliminary inquiry, a complaint be made in the appropriate court against them Under Sections 193/465/467/471 IPC. On 23-7-73 1st defendant (DW. 4) filed an objection against this application. Arguments were advanced by both sides on this aspect also on the date fixed for argument in the main suit and the application was rejected by the trial court while disposing of the suit by its judgment and order passed in the case on 31-7-73 by which it decreed in full the plaintiff s suit. The present appeal Under Section 476B of the old Code read with Article ...

Atenjenba and ors. Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Saikia, J. 1. In this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari/quo warranto or any other suitable writ, the petitioner impugns a decision of the Political Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and Dohhasis Customary Court (for short D. B. Court), Mokakchung in case No. 329/76 (Khensa villagers case) dt 23rd April/76. 2. Two villagers of Khensa, namely, Tekayangdang Bara and Imnasucha G. B. submitted a complaint to the D. B. Court D. C.'s office at Mokakchung stating that during the visit of Chungtia elders to their village for discussion of public interest Khensa elders purchased a cow for entertainment for which the seven persons, namely, Atenjenba Chunjangrepa, Merentosni, Tsukjummeren, Senwatiba, Akangsangba and Mapukaba refused to contribute the subscription and so they prayed that the D. B. Court should decide the dispute. The D. B. Court summoned the said seven persons to explain the complaint On 23rd April, 1976 the D. B. Cour...

Abdul Nur Laskar Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1985CriLJ1959

1. Against the order of conviction under Section 448 of the Penal Code and sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- in default to surfer R. I. for one month, the petitioner has preferred the Criminal revision.2. The prosecution case is that on Mar. 7, 1976 at about 7 p.m. the accused took shelter in the out-house of the first informant but thereafter did not leave the house : The first informant convened meeting of the local people to decide the dispute but the accused did not vacate the land. Accordingly, the first informant lodged a First Information Report. The accused was charged under Sections 448 and 426 of the Penal Code. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 426 of the I.P.C., but convicted under Section 448 by Shri H. M. Barkakati, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Hailakandi, The first informant examined himself as P.W.1 and stated that on 7-3-76 the accused with his leave took shelter for the night but unlawfully remained there. The accused did not leave ...