Guwahati Court September 1998 Judgments
Ganesh Das Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner had been the sitting lessee of Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8-Mandakuri/ Kurijan/Sessania/Hajosuti group Fishery of Kamrup District for the period 1994-97 and he submitted an application before the Minister, Department of Fisheries to give settlement of the said group of fisheries for the period of 7 more years on the ground that he suffered loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Though a report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, on the said application of the petitioner, no order was passed by the Government setting the said group of fisheries in favour of the petitioner and instead by ' order dated 17-7-97 of the Government, the said group of fisherie's were settled with Sri Basanta Kumar Das, respondent No. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order of settlement and for directing the State-respondents to settle the said group of fisheries in favour of the petitioner. 2. At the heari...
Tag this Judgment!Vandana Karki and ors. Vs. L. Chandrakishore Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
P.K. Sarkar, J. 1. Three significant questions have been raised in these two Writ appeals and have been referred to the Full Bench for adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- '(i) What is the true and correct interpretation of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules coupled with other relevantRules? (ii) Whether in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Harish Chandra Bhatia reported in (1995) 2 SEC 48, the law laid down by the learned Single Judge which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 55/95 needs to be reviewed/ changed? (iii) Whether the provision of DAM Police Service Rules 1971 is so far as officiating promotion to the service is concerned is a statute in pari-materia with the provisions of Rules 5, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 28 of the MRS Rules, 1965? If so, whether the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case (supra) and other ju...
Tag this Judgment!Vandana Karki and ors. Vs. L. Chandrakishore Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
P.K. Sarkar, J. 1. Three significant questions have been raised in these two Writ appeals and have been referred to the Full Bench for adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:-'(i) What is the true and correct interpretation of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules coupled with other relevantRules? (ii) Whether in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Harish Chandra Bhatia reported in (1995) 2 SEC 48, the law laid down by the learned Single Judge which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 55/95 needs to be reviewed/ changed? (iii) Whether the provision of DAM Police Service Rules 1971 is so far as officiating promotion to the service is concerned is a statute in pari-materia with the provisions of Rules 5, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 28 of the MRS Rules, 1965? If so, whether the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case (supra) and other judici...
Tag this Judgment!Anal Roy Choudhury Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
D. Biswas, J. 1. Heard Shri S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Shri T.D. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. The dispute relates to allotment of works order to respondent No. 3 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner, respondent No. 3 and another firm submitted quotations in response to the tender notice for the purpose of clearing and unloading bitumen from New Gauhati Railway station to Agartala for the year 1998-99.3. The petitioner's case is that he was the lowest bidder, but in spite of that the respondent No. 2 issued the work order in favour of the respondent No. 3 in a biased and arbitrary manner.4. It would appear that a contractor falling in one of the following three categories were made eligible to participate in the bid : 1) Enlisted contractors of Tripura Public-Works Department in appropriate class; or2) Transport carriers duly registered under the Indian Banker...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. P.R. Bhattacharjee No. 738550011 Con ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
D. Biswas, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 11, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3839 of 1991 quashing the order of dismissal of the petitioner and directing the respondent to reconsider and to impose lesser punishment other than the punishment of dismissal. Being aggrieved, the Union of India and others have preferred this writ appeal.2. The writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the penalty of dismissal on the ground that the disciplinary authority (Pretty Security Force Court) acted beyond jurisdiction and awarded verdict of guilt without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner who was Head Constable in the Border Security Force (A. Coy 22 Bn.) was indicted under four counts for misconduct and dereliction of duty and charges were framed accordingly. On completion of the departmental proceedings, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Datta Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-05-1998
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 24-2-1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Session Trial No. (W.T.A) 38/97 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to R. I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to R.I. for 15 days, and convicting him also for the offence under Section 304B, IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 7 years.The facts briefly are that on 11-10-1995 the appellant lodged an information with the Officer Incharge of Lembucheri Police Out Post, Airport, West Tripura that in the morning at 5-30 a.m. when he got up from sleep he found that his wife, Swapna was not present on the bed and was instead hanging on the ceiling fan with a sari. The police came and brought down the dead body of Swapna and she was cremated. Thereafter, FIR was lodged by Smt. Chayya Das, the mother of the deceased, on 20-10-1995 before the Officer Incharg...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Devi Vs. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipp ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
J.N. Sarma, J.1. F.A. No. 9 of 1993 has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Manipur in M.A.C. Case No. 42 of 1989. The learned Tribunal by interpreting Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (corresponding Section 110-AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) has held that the heirs have the option either to file an application under Motor Vehicles Act for compensation or to file application under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the heirs are not entitled to approach both the forums as in the instant case the heirs obtained compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act earlier to the tune of Rs. 64,621. He held that the subsequent application filed for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and accordingly refused to pass an award on the application.2. M.A. (F) Nos. 4 and 5 of 1996 have been referred to a Division Bench by the learned single Judge of this co...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Milan Rani Saha and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
D. Biswas, J. 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. has assailed the award of compensation of Rs. 3,02,400/-passed by the learned Member. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartata in T.S. (MAC) 34 of 1992 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has computed the compensation in total disregard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 and the interpretation thereof renderedby the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362.2. For better appreciation, the provisions of Section 163-A( 1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. is quoted below : '163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation oh structured formula basis.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pa...
Tag this Judgment!Makum Tea Co (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
D. Biswas, J. 1. The petitioner, Makum Tea Company (India) Limited, is a limited company and is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this writ petition, the petitioner-company has challenged the order dated March 19, 1993 (annexure-II), issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, demanding income-tax and additional tax for the assessment year 1992-93 and the order dated June 10, 1993, in purported exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Act refusing to rectify the mistakes so far as interest on deposit and interest on loan, etc., are concerned and adding the same in the total income of the petitioner.2. The petitioner-company submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 relevant to the previous year 1991-92 on December 30, 1992, showing a total income of Rs. 75,61,610. The total tax including surcharge payable by the petitioner-company amounted to Rs. 39,13,134. In addition a sum of Rs. 1,96,656 was also payable on account of interest un...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. Vs. Hotel Samrat
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
A.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. R. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the Respondents.2. The present appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been filed against the judgment and order dated March 17, 1989 passed by Shri A.N. Sarma learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Guwahati in E.S.I. Case No.8 of 1988. It appears that appellant No. 2, Assistant Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation demanded contribution of Rs. 18,338 from the Respondent in respect of period May 1987 to April 1988 towards E.S.I, contribution for its employees. Being faced with the demand Respondent filed case under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act in the E. S. I. Court on the ground that demand was illegally made inasmuch as it had not employed 20 or more than 20 employees in the service of the hotel. Therefore, the hotel did not fall within the purview of the Act. Hence no contribution towards Employees' Insurance w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›