Guwahati Court May 1993 Judgments
Monoranjan Paul and 2 ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Paul and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-26-1993
N.G. Das, J. 1. This second appeal by the defendant-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1978 allowing the appea filed by the plaintiff-respondents from the original decree dated 30-3-71 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kailashahar in T. S. 7 of 1966 dismissing the suit for declaration of title and khas possession. 2. To appreciate the contentions canvassed at the Bar by learned counsel of both the sides it is necessary to state the facts briefly. The subject matter of the suit related to a plot of land measuring 1 kani appertaining to Dag No. 118/1 of Khatian No. 17 of Mouja Manu Valley. 3. Put very shortly, the case of the plaintiff was that Padmalochan Paul and Bilashmani Paul were the original owners of the land measuring 7 drones 2 kanis appertaining to Touji No. 81/1 of Mouja Samrurpar and out of this 7 drones 2 kanis Padmalochan Paul was the owner and possessor of 6 drones 2 kanis of land and Bilashmani Paul was the owner and possessor of 1 dron...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Kr. Malo Das and anr. Vs. Khanindra Nath Gayan
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-25-1993
J. Sangma, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner. 2. Title Suit No. 14/93 was pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Barpeta. In that Court, the defendant-petitioner appeared by a Caveat on 11-5-93 apprehending that the plaintiff-respondent would file petition for injunction. The learned Asstt. District Judge by order dated 13-5-93 rejected the caveat and granted injunction on 18-5-93-against the defendanfcpetitioner. When a party files caveat under Section (48A,C.P.C. the Court has to give an opportunity of hearing to them if it has to pass an order which would go against them. If the Court rejects the caveat, it cannot pass an adverse order against the caveators. 3. Heard also Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party. He fairly conceded that the impugned order dated 18-5-93 (in T. S. 14/93) was wrong. In my opinion,the learned Asstt. District Judge has committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sita Devi and anr. Vs. Shri Shyam Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-1993
M. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has arisen against the order dated 25-9-1990 passed in Sessions Case No. 174(N-M)/87 (GR Case No. 475/85) under Section 302, I.P.C. (SIC) then Sessions Judge, Nagaon discharging the accused persons from indictment under Section 302/34, IPC and setting them at liberty.2. The Sessions Judge by the impugned order discharged the accused respondents holding that after perusing the case record there found nothing incriminating against them. The order, as it transpires on its reading, is not a mere order of discharge but a full-fledged judgment of acquittal as if rendered on appreciation of evidence.3. This two petitioners knocked the door for justice against the order of discharge of the accused by the Sessions Judge, Nagaon. Police registered the case and took up investigation in which it was revealed that the husband and father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively was killed on 26-4-1985 at about 10.30 p.m. at village Dakhin Vidyanagar and it ...
Tag this Judgment!Assam State Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Michitribala Das
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-1993
J. Sangma, J. 1. The appellant, who is owner of the vehicle, has preferred this appeal against the award dated 7-10-86 passed by Sri A, Sarkar, the Tribuftal, in M.A.C. Case No. 44/76. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The respondent (Smt. Bichitribala Das) sustained injuries in a motor accident and claimed compensation. By a judgment dated 21-12-82, the Tribunal found that the appellant's vehicle (Registration No. of the vehicle not shown in Tribunal's judgment and memo of appeal) was at fault for the accident and, accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. Against that award, the appellant preferred an appeal (MA(F)41/83) before this Court. The respondent (Smt. Bichitribala Das) neither preferred appeal nor cross-objection. By judg-ment dated 18-6-86, this Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the award and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for redetermining the amount of compensation in accordance with the principles governing the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Sorhab Ali Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-1993
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Accused in Sessions Case No. 31(B) of 1990 on the file of the Sessions Court, Barpeta, who was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- is the appellant herein.2. The prosecution case can be summarised as follows : -Jamela, daughter of P.W. 3, and the appellant came to be on terms of intimacy as a result of which she became pregnant. Appellant refused to marry her. The occurrence took place when she was six months pregnant. Late in the night on 11-2-1989 (in the early hours of morning of 12-2-1989) when the male inmates of Jamela's house were absent, appellant went there armed with a dagger, threatened the inmates of the house and forcibly took Jamely to a nearby field and forced her to drink some liquid. She cried out to others to rescue her but that was in vain. When P.Ws. 3 to 5 reached the field, appellant had disappeared and Jemela was lying on the ground. A glass and a piece ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirupama Rajkumari and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-13-1993
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants in M.A.C.T. Case No. 7 of 1982 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jorhat. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents.2. On 18.10.1981 Rajkumar Dilip Narayan Singha was returning home from Chinnamora Bazar on scooter No. DHW 7813. He was moving along his left side of the road at a slow speed. When he reached Jakhalapar at about 8.15 a.m., a jeep No. NLP 3363, belonging to first respondent, used by the second respondent and driven by the third respondent, came from the opposite side at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter and the rider and caused injuries to him and damage to the scooter. The injured was taken to the Jorhat Civil Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries at 3.30 p.m. On these allegations a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The claim was resisted by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Charu Deka Vs. Smt. Umeswari Nath and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-13-1993
Manisana, J. 1. In this application under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order of the Munsiff (1) Morigaon made on 2-2-1993 in Misc (J) Case No, 75 of 1992 arising out of Title Suit No. 27 of 1992 granting ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. 2. Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party-1, has submitted that the impugned order is appealable to the District Court and, therefore, no revision lies to the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. 3. In the present case, the Munsiff made the impugned order under Order 39, Rule (1), granting interlocutory injunction. Such an order is appealable under Order 43, Rule l{r). However, an appeal shall lie to the District Court and not to the High Court, and no second appeal shali lay to the High Court in view of Section 104(2), C.P.C. 4. The question which arises for consideration is whether the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C., is...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Chandra Bhuyan and ors. Vs. Association of Scientific and Techni ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-13-1993
J. Sangma, J. 1. The 3 (three) appellants were elected as Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer respectively of respondent No. 1 (Association of Scientific and Technical Officers, ONGC) in the election held on 18-12-92. 2. The respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 filed Title Suit No. 3/93 in the Court of Asstt. District Judge, Sibsagar for the declaration of the appellants' election as illegal and void. The said respondents also prayed for temporary injunction in the suit. In that suit, the Returning Officer alone was impleaded as the sole defendant. The appellants filed application for impleading themselves as defendants in the suit; but, by order dated 12-1-93, the trial Court rejected their prayer and granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The injunction has affected their interest. Hence, they preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule l(r), C.P.C. against the injunction. By order passed on 25-1-93, this Court has stayed the order of injunction. 3. Mr. S. Kataki, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhash Sampradaya Vs. Birash Ch. Das and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-12-1993
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This revision application arises out of the judgment and order dated 6-1-89 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Karimganj in Misc. Appeal No. 20/88 affirming the judgment and order dated 2-3-88 passed by the learned Munsiff No. II, Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 15/88 arising out of T. S. No. 334/ 87.2. The case of the plaintiff petitioner was that he was in possession of a room of a building since 1974 and in that particular room they had their belongings and they used to rehearsal etc. in that room. On 29-11 -87 the defendants placed fencing around the campus described in schedule of the plaint and also put a lock over the lock of the plaintiff in one room which was in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus having been dispossessed wrongfully filed the aforesaid title suit that is T.S. No. 334/87 in the Court of Munsiff No. II, Karimganj and along with the plaint he also filed an application for injunction in the mandatory form and also prayed fo...
Tag this Judgment!Zeenat Fatema Rashid Vs. Md. Iqbal Anwar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-05-1993
Manisana, J.1. This revision petition arises from an order of the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Gauhati made on 7-8-92 in Case No. FC(Cril) No. 111/92/74-M/90.2. Facts, -- The case of the petitioner, in brief, is thus. The petitioner Zeenat Fatema Rashid married Md. Iqbal Anwar, on 2-12-87, according to Muslim rites. After the marriage they lived as husband and wife at husband's residence. She had borne him a son on 3-11-1989. After that she was ill-treated by her husband and her in-law. She, therefore, instituted a criminal case on 13-8-1990 being case No. 87 of 1990. Finding no other alternative, she had to leave her husband's house and had to file a criminal case for getting back her properties and those properties were recovered on 31-8-1990. She also filed a case under Section 125, Cr. P.C., against her husband on 29-8-1990 claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child. Md. Iqbal Anwar (the respondent contested the case by filing written statement. His main defenc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »