Guwahati Court June 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.
Bhanwarlal Dugar and Sons Vs. District Magistrate, Kamrup and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-28-1984
Lahiri, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a registered firm carrying on the business of General Merchants and Commission Agents of Gauhati has approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24-2-1984 made by Shri S. K. Agnihotri, District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati under Section 11(4) of the Assam Shops and Establishments Act, 1971, directing the shops and establishments of the Greater Gauhati Area to keep them closed on certain days of the week as specified in the aforesaid order marked Annexure-B to the petition.2. The petitioner-firm is an establishment which attracts the provisions of the Assam Shops and Establishments Act, 1971, hereinafter 'the Act'. The main attack on the impugned order is on the ground that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction vested in him by law to make the order. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, let us read the provision of Section 11(4) of th...
Phanindralal Bardhan Vs. Ashes Kumar Deb Barman
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
K. Lahiri, J.1. There is a spate of criminal prosecutions against public servants and if things continue in this manner and the protection under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is not granted, perhaps the day is not far when all functions of the State shall be at a standstill by interested persons desiring to stall the activities of the State performed through the public servants.2. In the instant case the petitioner filed an application asking for lease of certain railway land and allegedly paid Rs. 410/- to the Railways for the said purpose. The opposite party is the Divisional Railway Manager, N. F. Railway, Lumding, an employee under the Ministry of Railways, Government of India in Class-I Service, appointed by the President of India. It is alleged that the railway authority did not lease out the land to the complainant in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner-complainant. It is further alleged that on 25-4-83 the complainant voluntarily met the accused and requested him for gran...
Shrimati Niranjan Kaur and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Saikia, J. 1. This motor vehicle first appeal is from the order dated June 24, 1978, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nowgong, Assam, rejecting the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing his claim petition in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 1 of 1978. The appellant in the said case filed the petition supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay both under Section 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Both the appellants were injured in a bus accident on January 8, 1976, when the Tata diesel bus No. ASZ 851, in which they were travelling, met with an accident. The claim petition was filed only on January 3, 1978, along with the aforesaid application for condonation of delay. It was stated therein that immediately after the accident, the appellants were awfully busy in the treatment of their ailing daughter who died later at Gauhati; and that the painful passing away of their daughter rendered them almost ind...
New India Assurance Company Vs. Haren Das and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. The insurer herein appeals from the award dated April 3, 1978, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nowgong, in M.A.C. Case No. 13 of 1976 allowing compensation of Rs. 56,000 out of which the insurer is to pay Rs. 51,000 and the insured Rs. 5,000. 2. The first respondent, Haren Das, was travelling by bus No. ASZ 851 on January 8, 1976, from Udari to Jaluguti and when the bus came near Danduapathar, at a distance of about 4 miles east from Morigaon Police Station, it capsized and fell into a ditch when its wheels ran over heeps of chips stacked on the road. The claimant-first respondent received several injuries. His right leg was fractured and left hand was cut by the glass of the bus. He had to be treated at Marigaon State Dispensary and then at the Nowgong Civil Hospital. Because of the fractured right leg, he has been permanently disabled and his leg has been shortened and he is unable to walk erect without the help of a stick and is unable to perform his norm...
New India Assurance Company Vs. Haren Dass (Claimant) and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
K.N. Saikia, J.1. The insurer herein appeals from the award dated 3-4-78 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nowgong in M.A.O. Case No. 13 of 1976 allowing compensation of Rs. 56,000/- out of which the insurer is to pay Rs. 51,000/- and the insured Rs. 5,000/-.2. The first respondent, Haren Das, was travelling by bus No. ASZ 851 on 8-1-76 from Udari to Jaluguti and when the bus came near Dandua-pathar, at a distance of about 4 miles east from Morigaon Police Station, it capsized and fell into a ditch when its wheels ran up over the heaps of chips staked on the road. The claimant-first respondent received several injuries. His right leg was fractured and left hand was cut by the glasses of the bus. He had to be treated at Marigaon State Dispensary and then at the Now going Civil Hospital. Because of the fractured right leg he has been permanently disabled and his leg has shortened and he is unable to walk erect without the help of a stick and is unable to perform his normal work lik...
Arun Chandra Malakar Vs. Patilal Roy and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
K. Lahiri, J. 1. On 16-9-78 the appellant-plaintiff obtained an ex parte order under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil P.C., for short 'the Code' and the follow up decree was prepared on 18-9-78. The respondents-defendants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for restoration of the suit upon setting aside the ex parte order which was dismissed on 25-9-78. The said order is extracted below : '25-9-78 - Under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. the petition of the petitioner is rejected as the suit has been decreed Under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CP.C.Sd/- S. K. Kar'On 26-9-78 the defendants preferred an appeal against the ex parte decree dt. 18-9-78. The appellate Court held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to render the order under Order 8 Rule 10 and further held that the trial Court hadcommitted jurisdictional error in rendering the ex parte decree. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, impugned decree was set aside and the suit was remitted to the trial Court for disposal in accord...
Md. Rais Mia Talukdar Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order dt. Oct., 11, 1983 passed by the State Government acting under Section 138 of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972. The Nowgong Mahkuma Parishad advertised Doboka Weekly Bazar for settlement. The petitioner as well as others submitted tenders. The petitioner tendered Rs. 4,605/- whereas respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 4,600/-. The Mahkuma Parishad settled the Bazar with Respondent No. 5. It appears that the Mahkuma Parishad rejected the tender of the petitioner on the ground that there was 'a public complaint' against the petitioner lodged with the Mahkuma Parishad. 2. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 138(2) of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, for short, 'the Act'. The State Government who heard the appeal held that the difference of 'tender amount' between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 was very nominal. The appellate authority also held that the Mahkum...
Bhattacharjee Brothers Vs. Superintendent of Taxes and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
K. Lahiri, J.1. What is the decisive factor, the terms of the written contract or the interpretation put by the parties to the contracts to ascertain whether the goods sold were 'exempted goods' under Section 7 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, for short 'the Act', read with Schedule III to the Act In our opinion the written contract speaks eloquently the nature and character of the goods sold or purchased and whether the goods fall within or outside the purview of the items enumerated in Schedule III to 'the Act'. The question whether the goods fall in any of the items of the schedule can be best decided by the taxing authorities on a proper appreciation of the terms of the contract.2. This writ petition stems from an order of assessment dated 17th December, 1970, rendered by the Superintendent of Taxes, Dibrugarh, under Section 17(3) read with Section 19A of 'the Act' and the appellate order dated 16th March, 1971, of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam at Jorhat.3. The petit...
Loknath Khound Vs. Gunaram Kalita and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. A plot of land measuring 2 (two) bighas covered by dag No. 331 of Patta No. 55 of Barunguri Kisamat, Mouza-Jiria, in the district of Nowgong is the subject matter of the present proceeding. The land, admittedly, initially belonged to the plaintiff Gunaram Kalita. Being in dire need of money,he wanted to mortgage the land to Hatem Ali, but Hatem Ali could not advance any money on mortgage; he insisted on sale, which request was complied with as Gunaram must have money to take care of his dire need. Accordingly, a registered sale deed was executed on 14-11-70 and on the same day a registered ekrarnama was gone into covenanting that Hatem would reconvey the land to Gunaram if the consideration, which was fixed at Rs. 1,200/- would be repaid within five years. The plaintiff's case is that he made repeated verbal demands on Hatem to comply with the terms of ekrarnama and issued registered notice also but to no avail. Not only this, to the dismay of the plaintiff he ca...
Suresh Chandra Giri Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. The short point that falls for consideration in this case is the computation of the period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahal Rules, 1977, for short 'the Rules'.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of acceptance of tender by the Conservator of Forest to the Governorunder Rule 9(1)(b) of 'the Rules'. The order of settlement was made on 8-7-83 and the appea! was preferred on 3-8-83, admittedly after 26 days of the making of the provisional order of settlement. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal in limine oh the ground that it was barred by limitation. According to the appellate authority the period of limitation is 15 days which commences from the date of communication of the order of acceptance of the tender by the Conservator of Forest. The appellate authority held that the order of acceptance of the tender was communicated to the successful candidate on 8-7-83, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »