Guwahati Court September 1991 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.
Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Purbanchal Erade Centre, Guwahati
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the interim ex parte order of injunction granted in a suit, namely, T.S. 32/91 against defendant (appellant) at the instance of the plaintiff (respondent) by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati. 2. Respondent issued four cheques to the appellant in connection with a transaction between them. Appellant presented the same to the Banker but they were returned with the endorsement 'refer to the drawer'. According to the appellant cheques were represented on two further occasion on instructions of the respondent and were dishonoured. The appellant thereupon issued registered notice dated 7-6-91 to the respondent demanding payment, as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The suit was filed on 5-7-91 praying for two declaratory reliefs, namely, (1) declaration that the appellant is not entitled to receive any amount from the respondent, and (2) declaration that provisions of S...
Premier Enterprises and ors. Vs. the State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-21-1991
Manisana, J. 1. These four (4) appeals, namely, FA Nos. 6(SH) 90, 7(SH)90, 8(SH)90 and 9(SH)90 arc disposed of by this common judgment as the question of facts and law raised in these appeals are similar. 2. Facts. The plaintiff, in each of the suits filed the suits against the. State of Meghalaya and three of its officers. In all the suits the two-months prior notice under Section 80(1), CPC was required. But, the suits were filed before the expiry of two (2) months. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suits as not maintainable relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Binary v. State of Bihar. AIR 1984 SC 1043. Hence these appeals.3. The appellant in each of the appeals has filed application praying that the appeals may be disposed of treating the order of dismissal as an order rejecting the plaint.4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the question which arises for consideration is whether the plaint is to be returned or rejected, or the suit is to b...
Shri Joyanta Borbora Vs. the State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-12-1991
S.N. Phukan, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution filed in respect of Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 578/90 registered Under Section 3/4/5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding and also for setting aside the order dated 26-12-90 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Dibrugarh and also for exemplary cost.2. The petitioner is a lecturer in Sociology Department of Dibrugarh University. According to the petitioner Dr. Dubey who is the head of the said Department wrote a letter dated 27-11-90 to the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University, Governor and Army implicating the petitioner with the movement of United Liberation Front of Assam. According to the petitioner, it was done with a mala fide intention by Dr. Dubey and this act was condemned in the meeting of the teachers. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested by the members of the ...
Sailesh Chandra Dey Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-11-1991
Bhat, C.J. 1. Petitioner is a former employee of M/s Moloy Biri Company Ltd. of which the Secretary is respondent No. 2 herein. Petitioner was working as an Accountant and for some reason or the other he tendered resignation which was accepted. However, the sums due to him by way of leave salary, out-station allowance, gratuity, bonus, unpaid salary and Provident Fund were allegedly not paid to him. He, therefore, filed an application before the respondent No. 1, the statutory authority, claiming the amount under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for short, the Act.) The application was resisted by the second respondent who contended, inter alia, that the petitioner had ceased to be 'workman' of the second respondent on the date of the application under Section 33C(2) and hence he is not entitled to invoke Section 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court accepted this contention and rejected the application. Hence, the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Con...
Soumyndra NaraIn Chowdhury Vs. State (Through Cbi)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. By this common judgment and order, I shall dispose of four criminal revision petitions registered as Criminal Revisions Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 of 1990. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding being No. RC/3/8 CIU(C) registered under Section 120B, I.P.C. read with Section 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 468 and 471, I.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Special Magistrate), Gauhati and registered as case C.R. Case No. 206C/85.2. Briefly stated, facts are as follows: The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 62/90 was the Branch Manager, Sales at Gauhati, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 63/90 was Stock-yard Superintendent and both the petitioners in Criminal Revisions Nos. 64 and 65 of 1990 were Senior Assistant (Cash Branch) and Senior Assistant (Sales) of the Gauhati Branch of the Steel Authority of India, which is a Govt. of India undertaking being a Government Company w...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›