Guwahati Court April 1992 Judgments

Khudiram Chakma Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Baruah, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition us Gaon Bura of Joypur Village Diyun Circle of Miao Sub-Division, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh, for himself and on behalf of his co-villagers challenging the Annexure 5 notice dated 15-2-84 issued by the fourth respondent directing them to shift to vacant land at Gautompur and Moitripur village in the District of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The case of the petitioner's, that, he along with 56 families migrated to India on 30th March, 1964 from erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, due to disturbances and fear of disturbances prevailing there at that time and took shelter in a Government camp. They first came to Ledo in Assam and thereafter they were taken to Bettiah, Bihar and later they were taken to Abhayapur Block in Diyun Circle of Tirap District. Arunachal Pradesh in 1966. The petitioner and other 56 families are Chakma of erstwhile East Pakistan. While in Abhayapur block the petitioner and other families negotiated w...

Kitply Industries Limited Vs. C. Syiemiang

Court: Guwahati

R.K. Manisana, J.1. The facts leading to the present contempt petition are thus. This Court made an order on 15-07-1991 in Civil Rule No. 3510 of 1991 directing the Assistant Collectors of Central Excise at Digboi and Tinsukia to refund the amount of Rs. 79,70,079.00 and Rs. 74,89,455.62 respectively to the petitioners within two months. But the Assistant Collectors failed to refund the money. Therefore, the present petition was filed on 16-09-1991 for initiating contempt proceedings for violation of the order of this Court. On 19-09-1991, this Court initiated contempt proceeding.2. The question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents had committed contempt of Court in view of Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 (for short the 'Amending Act') which came into force w.ei. 20-09-1991. By the Amending Act, the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 has been amended. Sub-section (3) of Section 11B which has been introduced into Section 11B by the Amending A...

Shila Nath Mallik and ors. Vs. Balabhadra Sutradhar and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR1992Gau121

1. This civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C. was dismissed on 29-8-88 for default of the petitioner. It was restored on 28-9-88 at the instance of the petitioner. After that the case was called for hearing for the second time on 22-12-88; but on that date also, the petitioner's counsel was absent. As it was not possible for the Court to go on dismissing for default and again restoring when the counsel makes a request; I perused the petition of revision and, by my judgment dated 9-2-89, dismissed it ex parte on merits.2. Mr. S.K. Sen, the late senior counsel for the petitioner assiduously pressed for vacating the ex parte judgment of dismissal and for disposing of the revision after hearing him. On consideration that the party should not suffer because of the fault of the counsel, I issued notice to the opposite party and then heard the counsel for both sides.3. The facts of the case were as follows. The opposite party was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 136/78 of the Court of Sadar...

Shila Nath Mallik and ors. Vs. Balabhadra Sutradhar and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR1992Gau121

ORDERJ.S. Sangma, J. 1. This civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C. was dismissed on 29-8-88 for default of the petitioner. It was restored on 28-9-88 at the instance of the petitioner. After that the case was called for hearing for the second time on 22-12-88; but on that date also, the petitioner's counsel was absent. As it was not possible for the Court to go on dismissing for default and again restoring when the counsel makes a request; I perused the petition of revision and, by my judgment dated 9-2-89, dismissed it ex parte on merits. 2. Mr. S.K. Sen, the late senior counsel for the petitioner assiduously pressed for vacating the ex parte judgment of dismissal and for disposing of the revision after hearing him. On consideration that the party should not suffer because of the fault of the counsel, I issued notice to the opposite party and then heard the counsel for both sides. 3. The facts of the case were as follows. The opposite party was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 136/7...

The Gauhati High Court Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Bhat, C.J. 1. Gauhati High Court, represented by the Registrar '(Judicial) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that Rules 13 to 16 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, 1964 Rules) in so far as they apply to members of Assam Judicial Service governed by the Assam Judicial Service Rules (for short, 1967 Rules) in respect of disciplinarymatters are ultra vires the Constitution and seeking a Writ of Certiorari quashing Notification dated 2-6-90 issued by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam and the order on the basis of which the Notification has been issued. By this Notification, third respondent, a Judicial Officer, who had been earlier dismissed from service by the Governor of Assam on the recommendation of the High Court was reinstated setting aside the decision of the High Court that he is guilty of gross misconduct warranting punishment of dismissal from service. Respondents ...