Guwahati Court August 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.
Dag Bahabur Chetri Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. The petitioner has been found guilty Under Sections 279/304A of the Penal Code for having caused the death of Bikash Chandra Dey, aged about 6 1/2 years, at the relevant time. The accident which had resulted in the death had taken place on 26-12-75 at about 12.30 PM on the Moran-Naharkatiya road. The prosecution case is that the death had occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle No. ASK 8357 by the petitioner which knocked down the boy on the right side of the road in so far as the vehicle is concerned. The learned trial Court and on appeal the learned Sessions Judge have opined that death was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner.2. The first submission advanced by Shri Gogoi is that the learned appellate Court below has failed to bear in mind the distinction between rashness and negligence-either of which would make a person criminally liable for his acts. He contends that absence of this difference is apparent ...
Abinash Chandra Dey Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills, Shillong and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. At the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the matter has come up for hearing. 2. Unnecessarily the Civil Rule is pending for so many years when it could have been disposed of within a matter of minutes. Eviction from Government land for public purpose and public convenience is the need of the house. However, it should not be done in breach of any fundamental right or other legal rights of the occupants. 3. We have heard Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya. We have perused the writ petition and also orders passed in Civil Rules 157/77 to 161/77, Nalini Kanta Sen v. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills decided on 7-114983, Civil Rule 165/77 Ramesh Chandra Deb v. The Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills District, Shillong decided on 1-2-84 and Civil Rule No. 222 of 1977, Shri Jawharlal Bahirwani v. The Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills District, Shillong decided on 9-8-1984. Relying on a...
Phusong Lam Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills, Shillong and ors ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. At the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the matter has come up for hearing. 2. Unnecessarily the Civil Rule is pending for so many years when it could have been disposed of within a matter of minutes. Eviction from Government land for public purpose and public convenience is the need of the hour. However, it should not be done in breach of any fundamental right or other legal rights of the occupants. 3. We have heard Mr. S. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya. We have perused the writ petition and also orders passed in Civil Rules 157/77 to 161/77, Nalini Kanta Sen v. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills decided on 7-11-83 Civil Rule 165/77 Ramesh Chandra Deb v. The Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills District, Shillong decided on 1-2-84 and Civil Rule No. 222 of 1977, Shri Jawharlal Bahirwani v. The Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills District, Shillong decided on 9-8-1984. Relying on an ...
Bapjan Ali Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 22(1) of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act as amended by the Assam Panchayati Raj (Seventh Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, the Governor of Assam, on the expiry of the term of the Mahkuma Parishad, constituted an Ad hoc Committee in each Mahkuma Parishad as per list enclosed in the Notification dated April 19, 1983. The petitioner was appointed a Member of the Ad hoc Committee, Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad, Although it was an Ad hoc appointment, the petitioner remained as a member of the Mahkuma Parishad for over one year. In the said capacity, the petitioner performed various functions in the Mahkuma Parishad. However, the offices which the petitioner held was on the basis of his Membership of the Ad hoc Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad. Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not contended that the Governor had no such power of appointment. Learned coun...
Henkholam Kuki and ors. Vs. Kadapti Tangkhul and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
T.N. Singh, J.1. This case has weathered 16 summers and the sun is still shining on it. Indeed it epitomises a classic example of limitation of the justicing process as also of frustration of the legislative will. As far back as in 1968, a preliminary order was passed in this case under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C. The proceeding so initiated has still to see the end of the day. Parties fought several bouts of the litigation in this Court, in the Sessions Court as well as the trial Court during the course of the last 16 years. It is anybody's guess, why they overlooked the wholesome legislative mandate that orders passed in the course of proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. have a limited finality. Indeed, none cared to go to the Civil Court as fortunes fluctuated in the course of this long period. Everyone pinned hope on it to see final success in this proceeding itself.2. Be that as if may, I must consider the submission made before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners who h...
Ataur Rehman Barlaskar Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. The subject matters of the present proceedings are matters of 1977 as well wherefor 7 years have rolled by and the matter regarding removing of a mutawalli under the provisions of Section 43 of the Wakf Act. 1954, as amended, has yet to see a final end. It is a fit case in which the petitioner is entitled 10 Rule. However, it may cause injury and harm to both the parties if the matter is delayed and not disposed of to-day right now. 2. We had the advantage of hearing Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate Assam in respect of the appellate order marked Annexure 3, which we extract hereinbelow : -- 'Order - The Government do not find any ground to et aside the order of removal of the appellant from the Mutawalliship of the above mentioned Wakf Estate. Hence the appeal is rejected.Sd/-Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Legislative Wakf Affairs Deptt.'. The act of removal of a Mutawalli is a serious business as it appears from the provisions ...
Brinde Nath Sarma Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
K. Lahiri, J.1. In Civil Rule No. 107/84 Pratap Chandra Das v. District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati the petitioner questioned the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate imposing collective fine in exercise of power Under Section 5 of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, as amended. The facts and circumstances of that case as well as the question of law are same and in the course of hearing we have heard Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned Advocate General, Assam, on behalf of the respondents and Mr. R. C. Choudhury and ors. on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the order that we rendered in Pratap Chandra (supra) should be rendered in this case on the basis of the principle enunciated therein. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Pratap Chandra (supra) we make the following order in this case:It would meet ends of justice if the petitioner is granted post decisional hearing which undoubtedly include his right to submit rep...
Bidyadhar Neog Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. In Civil Rule No. 107/84 Pratap Chandra Das & Ors. v. District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati & anr. the petitioner questioned the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate imposing collective fine in exercise of power Under Section 5 of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, as amended. The facts and circumstances of that case as well as the question of law are same and in the course of hearing we have heard Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned Advocate General, Assam, on behalf of the respondents and Mr. P. G. Barua and anr. on behalf of the petitioner: Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the order that we rendered in Pratap Chandra (supra) should be rendered in this case on the basis of the principle enunciated therein. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Pratap Chandra (supra) we make the following order in this case :It would meet ends of justice if the petitioner is granted post decisional hearing which undoubtedly include his ri...
Priya Vart Dewan Singh and ors. Vs. the Senior Superintendent of Taxes ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
K. Lahiri, J.1. We propose to dispose this bunch of civil rules by a common order, as they involve similar question of facts and law.2. In short, the petitioners have filed appeals, against orders of assessment passed by the Senior Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, Dharmanagar and Udaipur, for different assessment periods, to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tripura, at Agartala. Learned Assistant Commissioner of Taxes demanded 65 per cent in some cases and 70 per cent in the other cases of the tax assessed to be deposited before entertaining the appeals. The matter was taken to the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal, which dismissed all the appeals preferred by the petitioners.3. Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, has questioned the validity of the said demand on the ground that there is no provision of law empowering the appellate authority to demand payment of a specified percentage of the assessed tax before entertaining the appeal and has also contended that the discre...
Ram Akhaibat Upadhay Vs. Srikrishna Prasad Shah and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Dr. T.N. Singh, J. 1. What precisely has fallen for the consideration of this bench is the interpretation of the term 'reasonable improvements' to be found in Section 5(1)(b) of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, for short the Act or 1955 Act. We may however quote the relevant provisions of both clauses of Sub-section (1) to appreciate the underlying legislative intent of the concerned provision and the term used therein. 5. Protection from eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any contractor in any law for the time being in force- (a) Where under the terms of a contract entered into between a landlord and his tenant whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a tenant is entitled to build, and has in pursuance of such terms actually built within the period of five years from the date of such contract, a permanent structure on the land of the tenancy for residential or business purposes, or where a tenant not being so entitled to build, has actual...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »