Guwahati Court November 1999 Judgments
Kshetrimayum Maipak Devi Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the mother of the detenu, viz., Kshedtrimayam Noyon Meitei alias Laba alias Hemanta alias Ibohal Achouba (46). son of Ksh. Amu Singh Meitei of Sekta Awarg Leikai, P. S, Lamlai, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, sought for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention order dated 21.4.1999, of the detenu who was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention was passed on 21.4.1999 by the District Magistrate, Imphal East and the grounds of detention was served on him on 29th April, 1999 through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. The detenu submitted his representation challenging the detention order dated 21.4.1999 on 7th May, 1999 through the Jail Superintendent. The order of detention of the detenu was confirmed by an order dated 2.6.1899 further fixing the period of detention of the detenu for a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Toijam Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
D.N. Chowdhury, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has assailed the detention order dated 8-4-99 of her husband T. Lokeshore Singh who was arrested on 9-3-99 in connection with the Cri. N.S.A. No. 1 of 1999 under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 in the following circumstances :The husband of the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 9-3-99 and thereafter vide order dated 8-4-99 the detenu was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act with a view to prevent him to do any act which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The ground of detention was served on the detenu on 12-4-1999 and his detention was confirmed on 11 -5-99 by the State Government. The detenu submitted his representation on 27-4-99 and according to the Petitioner, till filing of the petition, the detenu did not receive any communication about the disposal of the representation. Learned counsel Mr. H.S. Paonam submi...
Tag this Judgment!Kshetrimayum Maipak Devi Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the mother of the detenu, viz., Kshedtrimayam Noyon Meitei alias Laba alias Hemanta alias Ibohal Achouba (46). son of Ksh. Amu Singh Meitei of Sekta Awarg Leikai, P. S, Lamlai, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, sought for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention order dated 21.4.1999, of the detenu who was detained under Section 3(2) of the National SecurityAct, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention was passed on 21.4.1999 by the District Magistrate, Imphal East and the grounds of detention was served on him on 29th April, 1999 through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. The detenu submitted his representation challenging the detention order dated 21.4.1999 on 7th May, 1999 through the Jail Superintendent. The order of detention of the detenu was confirmed by an order dated 2.6.1899 further fixing the period of detention of t...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Ranjan Majumdar Vs. Alo Banik and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
M.L. Singhal, J.1. Heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C. directed against the order dated 3-11-1998 passed by Sri S. Sikdar, I/C, Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur awarding maintenance to the petitioner No. 2 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Opposite party has not filed revision against the impugned order before the learned Sessions Judge and has come direct to the High Court. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that under Section 397, Cr.P.C. the High Court and the learned Sessions Judge have concurrent revisional jurisdiction.3. It is true that under Section 397, Cr.P.C. both the High Court and the Sessions Judge have concurrent revisional jurisdiction. But as a matter of established practice which was also under old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the revision is filed first before the Sessions Judge then before the High Court, The...
Tag this Judgment!Laba Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This Criminal Appeal (Jail) has been filed by Laba Chandra Dutta, Kusha Chandra Dutta and Pradip Dutta under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 15-12-97 of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Sessions Trial No. 21 (WT/A) 93, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to undergo further imprisonment for another six months.2. The facts briefly are that on 13-6-84 at about 9.15 pm. Shri Sudhir Deb, the informant, lodged an oral complaint in the Police Station of Sidhai stating that at about 8.00 p.m. on 13-6-84 when he was in his office at Narendrapur Tea Garden, Shri Jiten Kanda, a labourer of the tea garden and a boy of about 5/6 years old came to his office room panting and told him that when he along with Haran Sarkar, brother of Nirmal Sarkar and the little boy who is the son of ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Raj Brothers
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-25-1999
A.P. Singh, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed for challenging the judgment and order dated 16-11-92 passed by Shri K. K. Nag, Assistant District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in T. -- (Arb) No. 24 of 1991 directing the defendant No. 2, Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone to appoint an arbitrator within a period of one month. It was further directed that the said arbitrator must be appointed within the stipulated tim1e failing which the Court shall appoint an arbitrator. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff M/s. Raj Brothers is a registered partnership firm having its registered head office at Calcutta and branch office at Tezpur. It engages in the business of contract work for construction of road, building etc. The plaintiff was allotted contract by the Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone on behalf of the President of India for provision of Technical Accommodation including necessary services. The contract agreement being No. CE (RCP)/...
Tag this Judgment!HegIn Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus questioning the legality and validity of the detention order dated 11-3-1999 issued by the District Magistrate, Chandel against Paulin Soyang Haokip alias Soyang alias P.S. Haokip, son of late Paulin, a resident of Bijang (Tuibong) in the Churachandpur district, Manipur, under sub-section (3) read with sub-section (2) of Sections of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the subsequent approval given by the Government to the continued detention of the detenu, which arose in the following circumstances. The detenu, Paulin Soyan Haokip alias Soyang alias, P.S. Haokip, was arrested on 17-2-99 by the Army personnel at Moreh and he was handed over to the O.C., Moreh Police Station. A regular criminal case under FIR Case No. 6(2) of Moreh Police Station under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act was registered against the detenu. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nakul Chandra Borkakoti
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
1. This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated October 10, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the Civil Rule No. 1588 of 1990 whereby the impugned order of punishment has been set aside with consequential relief of reinstatement and other benefits. The respondent-appellants being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment preferred this appeal on various grounds controverting the legality and validity of the impugned judgment.2. We have heard Mr. A.R. Borthakur and Mr, P. Borthakur, learned senior counsels for the respondent-appellants and Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. P. Bora, Ms. J. Borah and others for the respondents.3. The respondent-petitioner Shri Nakul Chandra Borkakoti joined the services in the office of the appellant-Corporation as an Agronomist and was eventually promoted to the post of Area Manager with effect from August 12, 1983. On August 3, 1988 the respondent and 7 others were called upon to show ...
Tag this Judgment!HegIn Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
D.N. Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus questioning the legality and validity of the detention order dated 11-3-1999 issued by the District Magistrate, Chandel against Paulin Soyang Haokip alias Soyang alias P.S. Haokip, son of late Paulin, a resident of Bijang (Tuibong) in the Churachandpur district, Manipur, under sub-section (3) read with sub-section (2) of Sections of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the subsequent approval given by the Government to the continued detention of the detenu, which arose in the following circumstances. The detenu, Paulin Soyan Haokip alias Soyang alias, P.S. Haokip, was arrested on 17-2-99 by the Army personnel at Moreh and he was handed over to the O.C., Moreh Police Station. A regular criminal case under FIR Case No. 6(2) of Moreh Police Station under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act was registered against the detenu. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Steelsworth Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-20-1999
D.N. Baruah, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati, for opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material to hold that the assessee has underestimated advance tax payable and thereby reduced the amount payable in instalments for the year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The Assessing Officer completed assessment for the year 1975-76 and the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 216 of the Act. According to him, the assessee filed an estimate of advance tax on September 5, 1974, under Section 212(1) showing advance tax payable at Rs. 9,34,500. Thereafter, on March 13, 1975, a revised estimate was filed under Section 212(2) indicating advance tax payable by the assessee at Rs. 23,20,500. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee reduced the amount payable in th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »