Guwahati Court May 1995 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Stilian Phanrang and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-29-1995
S.L. Saraf, J.1. This order relates to matter Nos. 3 to 14 of the hearing list.2. In all these matters, revision applications have been filed by the insurance company against an order whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded to each individual an amount by way of compensation which is below Rs. 10,000/-. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lays down that 'no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/-.' The insurance company, finding the bar of Sub-section 2 of Section 173 whereby it could not have filed any appeal against the orders where the claim was only to the extent of less than Rs. 10,000/-, it has resorted to file this revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. This, according to me, is a colourable exercise of power and is an abuse to the letter and spirit of legislative intent. It smacks of mala fide on the part o...
Managing Committee of Powa Macca Dargah Sarif Vs. the State of Assam a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-1995
M. Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has arisen against the order under Memo No. DJK/PMD/5/94-95/257-290 dtd. 18-2-95 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup/Administrator of Hajo Powa Macca Dargarh Sarif, Guwahati superseding the other orders issued in the matter of the petitioner Dargarh Sharif. 2. Revision petitioner is the Managing Committee of Powa Macca Dargarh Sharif, Hajo represented by its Khadim, Syed Duil Mahammad Ali, an elected body by the respective voters of the village Dhuhibala, Fakirtala and 5th Mile. This committee was elected for 5 years with effect from 25-5-1988. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after being elected, the Managing Committee used to function as usual and undertook various developmental works for the Dargarh Sharif and have given an upliftment of the entire image of the Dargarh Sharif to the satisfaction of all and earned accolades of the people concerned. That though the term of the Managing Committee was due to expire on 25-5-1993 due...
Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-08-1995
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This writ application has been filed against the award dated December 30, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in reference case No. 29 of 1984 whereby the Labour Court upheld the dismissal of the workmen Sri P.N. Roy by the Management to be justified. 2. On November 4, 1981 a Charge Sheet was delivered to the workman listing certain irregularities therein and thereafter a domestic enquiry was held and the workman was dismissed from service. Thereafter a Reference was made by the Government and that was registered as Reference Case No. 29/84 before the Labour Court, Assam at Dibrugarh. The two points which arose for decision in the reference are as follows: '1. Whether the Management of Anandabari T.E. is justified in dismissing Shri P.N. Roy, Hazira Mohorer? 2. If not, is Sri Roy entitled to reinstatement in his former position with all back wages and other fringe benefits for the period of unemployment or any other relief as deemed prope...
Apollo Machinery Mart Vs. on the Death of Firoj Shah Mustt. Rausana Be ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-05-1995
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is a revision underSection 115, CPC, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts of the case are that the opposite party filed TS No. 112/84 against the petitioner claiming that the petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party in respect of the suit house and defaulted in payment of rent and praying for eviction ofthe petitioner from the suit house and for recovery of arrear rent. By judgment dated 8-10-1993, the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati, decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrear rent. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed TA No. 11/93 in the Court of the Additional District Judge Kamrup, Guwahati. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed a petition praying that the records of MS No. 20/88 and MS No. 19/91 pending in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati be called for. The opposite party filed an objection to the said position. After hearing the parties, by o...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Assam Hard Board Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-05-1995
J.N. Sarma, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7-9-1990 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. l, Kamrup, Gauhati in Title Suit No. 45 of 1983 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.2. The brief facts are as follows :The plaintiff is a company under Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is a manufacturer and dealer of all kinds and classes of boards, hardboard, insulated board, clipboard and all kinds of articles, in the process of manufacture of wood, bamboo and its allied products are used. The company manufactured hardboard from the year 1965 to 1977 and during this period a total amount of Rs. 8,17,430.86 was realised by the Central Excise Department as duty on an aqueous solution held by the Department as aqueous solution of resin which was used in the process of manufacture of hardboard. During the period mentioned above, the department demanded duty and the same was paid by the Company under mistake of fact. The law regarding the validity of du...
K.L. Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-02-1995
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. Both the Civil Rules relate to a common fact and involve common questions of law. Therefore, I propose to dispose of both the Civil Rules by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners in both the Civil Rules challenged the notice dated 18-1-95 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps Department, Shillong. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 292/95 also challenged the agreement dated 6-1-95 entered into by and between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Meghalaya and prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and other appropriate Writ or direction for quashing the notice dated 18-1-95 and also the agreement dated 6-1-95. 3. The case of the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 329/95, inter alia, is as follows:-- The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of marketing and trading State Government lotteries with its registered office at New Delhi and a local office at Mouchak Market, Guwahati. In...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›