Guwahati Court April 1997 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.
Shaila Bala Chose and ors. Vs. Nitai Chandra Saha and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-23-1997
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.12.1996 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. No. 46 (MAC) of 1996. By the said order the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has denied the relief to the claimant-petitioners in the said claim case under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles-Act, 1988 and has held that the said claim may be granted if the claimants satisfy the court in the original suit T.S. (MAC) 179 of 1996 that the death of Baikuntha Ghosh on 7.1.1996 was due to road accident.2. Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that before the Tribunal a copy of the first information report dated. 3.1.1996 relating to the accident has been filed which would disclose that the death of late Baikuntha Ghosh was caused by an accident with the jeep registered as TR-03-1...
Assam State Electricity Board Guwahati and ors. Vs. Borjalinga Tea Com ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This First Appeal has beenfiled against the judgment and decree dated 9-8-96 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge No.2, Cachar at Silchar decreeing the suit by which,the penal bills as mentioned in para I7(a) of theplaint was declared to be illegal and void. It wasfurther decreed that the defendants are not entitled,to realise any amount in such bills. The suit wasalso decreed for permanent injunction. Theplaintiff Tea Co. brought a suit against the ASE3and others and their case was that the amount ofpenal charge of Rs. 1,12,748.79 P. demanded bythe penal bills dated 21-8-94 is illegal and thatfurther claimed that there was consumption ofelectricity of 231.4 KWs in place of sanctionlimit of 250 KW is illegal. It was further statedthat this penal bill was prepared on me basis ofinventory prepared by the officers of defendantduring their visit on 8-11-83. The said inventoryillegally included the stand-by motors and assuch the suit was filed. A written statement...
State of Assam and ors. Vs. Mukunda Oja and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This first appeal has been filed by the Stale of Assam against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-89 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Barpeta in M.S. No. 11/88. By the impugned decree, the learned Judge decreed the suit against the State of Assam for an amount of Rs. 1,24,850/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. 2. On 30-8-90, this Court admitted the appeal and the execution of the decree was stayed on condition that the State of Assam shall deposit half of the decretal amount within 1 months from that dale. The amount was deposited and thereafter on 8-11-90 this Court passed an order that the plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the same by furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court. This order was subsequently modified on 30-7-91 and the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the amount by furnishing security of immovable property. The half of the amount deposited was withdrawn by the plaintiff...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sudarshan Plywood Industries Ltd. an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
D.N. Chowdhury, J.1. These three appeals are preferred by the Revenue assailing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.1995 passed in Civil Rule Nos. 650, 856 and 1072 of 1987. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Civil Rules by a common judgment and order. The three appeals were therefore taken up together for disposal since the appeals involve the common question of law.2. In all the three writ petitions, the respondents writ petitioners assailed the show-cause notices issued under Rule 233-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for recovery of duties' short-levied or short-paid vide notice dated 9.10.1985 in Civil Rule No. 856 of 1987, notice dated 9.10.1985 in Civil Rule No. 1072 of 1987 and notice dated 9.4.1985 in Civil Rule No. 650 of 1987.3. Since the facts are alike, for the sake of convenience, we shall hereafter only advert to the facts chronicled in the Civil Rule No. 856 of 1987.4. By notice bearing No. V-16B/3/Adj/85/73966-76 (B) dated 9th October...
MahiruddIn Borbhuiya Vs. Mustt. Rythun Nessa
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a case for declaration that the sale deed dated 2-1-84 described in the Schedule 'C' of the plaint is voidable as the defendant failed to pay the balance amount of the consideration money of Rupees 45,000/- for which the deed was made. It was the further prayer that this deed of sale be rescinded, delivered and cancelled, and also for delivery of khas possession of the suit land. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that in the middle of December, 1983, the defendant No. I sent his cousin, act-villager of the plaintiff to the house of the plaintiff with the proposal whether the plaintiff is willing to sell her land described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The defendant No. 1 agreed to purchase the same on the market value. After about a week it was informed by the defendant to the plaintiff that the agreement for sale will be made/executed and the plaintiff was asked to go there with her husband. The p...
Surma Valley Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has sought for a direction on the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 2,49,173.60 with interest @ 18 per cent per annum.2. The facts briefed are: The petitioner No. 1, viz., M/s. Surma Valley Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer of plywood, block board, etc. By notification No. 80/80-CE dated 19.6.1980 issued by the Central Government under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a small scale industry was allowed exemption from excise duty if its clearances did not exceed the limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Thereafter the limit of Rs. 20 lakhs was enhanced to Rs. 25 lakhs by notification No. 83/83 dated 1.3.1983. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Karimganj, did not allow the exemption to the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed appeals before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta. The said appeals were also rejected. Then t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›