Guwahati Court April 1999 Judgments
State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Ralkapzawna
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated May 15, 1996 passed in Civil Rule No. 30/95. 2. The petitioner-respondent after drawal of the departmental proceeding was discharged from service by way of punishment. In the Civil Rules several points seems to have been taken about inadequate opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner-respondent. Yet, another point seems to have been taken was that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished, hence, there was violation of principle of natural justice as he was deprived of an opportunity to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer. As such, the order of punishment is bad. Learned single Judge considered this aspect of the matter. It may be noticed that there is no denial of the fact that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner-respondent before passing the final order of punishment. It may also be noted that copy was furnished ...
Tag this Judgment!Tagam Tamut and ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
1. This writ petition has been preferred for issue of a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari for quashing the promotion order of the private respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and the gradation list of Group 'B' Officers of the Agriculture Department, Arunachal Pradesh, along with other consequential reliefs.2. Petitioners' case in brief is that they were duly selected and appointed as Agriculture Inspector, Horticulture Inspector, Plant Protection Inspector (Grade 'C') vide appointment orders passed on 1-2-1979, 24-4-1980. 28-10-1983 and 30-7-1984. The respondent authority also vide notification dated 30-5-1989 (Annexure - 2) upgraded the status of Agriculature Inspector/ Extension Officer/Agriculture Manager/Technical Assistant/ Horticulture Inspector and Plant Protection inspector having degree in Agriculture from Group 'C' to Group 'B' (Gazetted status). The respondent authority were promoting the Inspectors in various branches mentioned above to the next higher grade as per gradation list prepared an...
Tag this Judgment!Tagam Tamut and ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
1. This writ petition has been preferred for issue of a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari for quashing the promotion order of the private respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and the gradation list of Group 'B' Officers of the Agriculture Department, Arunachal Pradesh, along with other consequential reliefs.2. Petitioners' case in brief is that they were duly selected and appointed as Agriculture Inspector, Horticulture Inspector, Plant Protection Inspector (Grade 'C') vide appointment orders passed on 1-2-1979, 24-4-1980. 28-10-1983 and 30-7-1984. The respondent authority also vide notification dated 30-5-1989 (Annexure - 2) upgraded the status of Agriculature Inspector/ Extension Officer/Agriculture Manager/Technical Assistant/ Horticulture Inspector and Plant Protection inspector having degree in Agriculture from Group 'C' to Group 'B' (Gazetted status). The respondent authority were promoting the Inspectors in various branches mentioned above to the next higher grade as per gradation list prepared an...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kumardhan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Patnaik, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner who belongs to the Manipuri community and who speaks Manipuri language. The relevant facts briefly are that by a notification dated 27-11-75, the Government of Assam published a list of Other Backward Classes in the State of Assam who would be entitled to reservation in public services. Against serial 13 of the said list published by the notification dated 27-11-75 'Manipuri including Manipuri Brahmins and Manipuri Muslims' were mentioned as an Other Backward Class. On 16-11-92, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India was delivered. B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. delivering the majority judgment held in para 117 of the judgment as reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 that there ought to be a permanent body, in the nature of a Commission or Tribunal, to which complaints of wrong inclusion or non-inclusion of groups, classes and sections in the lists of Other Backward Classes could be made and which...
Tag this Judgment!The Tufanialonga Tea Co. Ltd., Calcutta and anr. Vs. State of Tripura ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Patnaik, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for declaring the Tripura Tea Companies (Taking Over of Certain Tea Units) Ordinance 1986 and the Tripura Tea Companies (Taking Over of Management of Certain Tea Units) Act, 1987, as ultra vires the Constitution and for quashing the notification and orders issued thereunder as well as the Certificate Proceedings leading to the sale of the tea estates belonging to the petitioners in course qf the said Certificate Proceedings and for a direction on the respondents to pay proper compensation with interest at 18% per annum for the damages suffered by the petitioners on account of the take over of the lea estates of the petitioners.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner No. 1 is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and was the owner of the Tufanialonga Tea Easte located at Tebaria. The petitioner No. 2 is also a limited company register...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Lohti Chandra Gogoi
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on January 27, 1999 by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3883/97.2. The writ petitioner Sri Lohit Chandra Gogol, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner', is a Science Graduate and since 1994 he is knocking the doors of the appellant Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to get an appointment to earn his livelihood. The petitioner was engaged as Trainee Apprentice with effect from November 23, 1992 for a period of 18 months with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'IOC'. The petitioner completed his training programme on May 22, 1994. The IOC issued an employment notice for filling up 9 (nine) posts of Chemical 'D' Operators and the petitioner applied, for the same through Employment Exchange and also appeared in the written examination. However, the petitioner was not called for interview whereupon the petitioner approached this Court along with one Bakul Deka in Civil Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Mahali and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
D. Biswas, J. 1. Both the writ petitions have been preferred by the Works Contract Labourers engaged on daily wage of Rs. 47.21 p by the Oil India Limited, respondent No. 2 for regularisation of their services and for payment of equal wages with their counterpart as detailed in Annexure-III of both the writ petitions vis-a-vis for quashing the Government Order communicated vide letter dated November 23, 1994 refusing to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The petitioners' case is that although they are working as Works Contract Labourers under various contractors, in fact they are the direct workmen under the Oil India Limited for all intention and purposes and working as such without any interruption for the last several years discharging various functions of perennial nature. The petitioners are also members of Oil India Workers Association and the said Association espoused the cause of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. The Oil India Limited entered ...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Metal Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
M. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside/quashing the warrant of authorisation dated September 17, 1998, under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), including the panchanama prepared by the respondent-Revenue authority and also for a direction to release Rs. 50,00,000 (rupees fifty lakhs) and other documents requisitioned under the said Section. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that petitioner No, 1 is a limited company and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and managing director and petitioner No. 3 is the employee of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner-company has been carrying on business of manufacture of dealing in, extractor, whole seller, retailer, exporter and importer of all types of ferrous and non-ferrous metal, alloy steels, ferro alloys, pig iron, etc. The petitioner-company also imports goods dealt in by it from the U.S.A. and the Middle East countries. That the petitioner-com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›