Guwahati Court June 1999 Judgments

Chandmari Tea Co. and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

M. Sarma, J. 1. By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions as the facts and points of law involved in these eases are common.2. In these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged Notifications dated 11-9-74, 10-9-85 and 25-10-85 and other Notifications issued by the Govt. of Assam notifying extension of the territory of Burachapari Reserve Forest and Kaziranga National Park as per the Schedule mentioned in those Notifications. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the cancellation of Grazing Permits and prayed for a direction to provide for alternative pasture ground for grazing their catties.3. In Civil Rule No. 1923/93 the petitioners have challenged the Notifications dated 13-6-85 and 3-8-89 and the impugned notice dated 9-12-92 issued by the Regional Forest Officer. Bagori by which petitioners were asked not to proceed with Tea Plantation in the area in question which was handedover to the Forest Department by the Revenue De...

Rajib Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner herein filed an application claiming compensation for the death of his predecessor who died on 12.8.1987 in a motor accident. The said claim petition was filed on 31.8.1996 with an application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition before the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kailashahar. The same was registered as Title Suit (MACT) No. 18 of 1996.3. After hearing the petitioner, the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected the application for condonation vide his order dated 24.5.1997 holding that the condonation application is barred by limitation and as such not maintainable as no ground for delay was given. The petitioner has come to this court challenging the aforesaid order of the Member...

Binita Sarma Vs. Biren Kumar and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S. Barman Roy, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.1992 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 41(K) of 1992 dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also the subsequent order dated 10.2.1995 passed by the same Tribunal in the same case rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of her claim case.2. The case, in short, is that late Nagen Sarma was the husband of the petitioner and he died in a motor accident, as stated in the petition. The accident in question took place on 13.5.1990. Late Nagen Sarma at the time of his death left behind him the present petitioner being his wife and his two minor sons, who were then aged about 4 and 10 years respectively. Nagen Sarma at the time of his death was aged about 42 years. He was the sole bread-earner in the family...

North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jiban Kumar ...

Court: Guwahati

H.K.K. Singh, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the C.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4-11-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1. West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 71 of 1998 thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner herein for stay of further proceedings of the suit in view of the Arbitration Clause in the Contract Agreement entered into between the parties.2. The respondent as plaintiff brought asuit for recovery of Rs. 33,750/- from thepetitioners herein. It was averred in theplaint that there was a contract agreementdated 2-11-1995 between the parties forconstruction of 'A type residential buildingat the permanent Colony of Agartala GasTurbine Power Project, Ramchandranagar,Tripura West' and on completion of theworks the-plaintiff submitted the final bill foran amount of Rs. 67,500/-, But out of theaforesaid amount a sum of Rs. 33,750/- wasdeducted by the defendants, According tothe...

Pranatosh Roy and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. The abovenoted petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Public Interest Litigation Cell (PIL Cell) to the effect that the petition filed by the petitioner earlier does not fall within the guidelines provided for entertaining litigation in the public interest. 2. We have heard Shri B. K. Das, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General. Assam and Shri D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It appears that a petition was filed on 16-10-98 by the petitioners, namely, Pranatosh Roy and others which was also titled as against the category 'Public Interest Litigation'. It appears that due to the said caption 'Publtc Interest Litigation' it was provided that the petition may be placed before the PIL Cell to examine the matter in the light of guidelines as laid down to ascertain whether the matter would be cognizable as PIL or not. The Cell seems to have examined the matter and came...

Y. Budha Singh and ors. Vs. State of Manipur and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kotiswar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kumar for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Shyamkishore Singh, Sr. GA, Manipur, for the respondent No. 1.2. The nineteen petitioners are all Councillors of the Imphal Municipal Council and their case in the writ petition is that the office of the Chairperson of Imphal Municipal Council fell vacant and to fill up the said vacancy, the Executive Officer of Imphal Municipal Council circulated notice dated 15.5.1999 to all the Councillors to hold a meeting at 1 AM on 19.5.1999 in the Meeting Hall of the Imphal Municipal Council for electing a new Chairperson of Imphal Municipal Council. Pursuant to the said notice, the Councillors arrived at the Meeting Hall of the Imphal Municipal Council for electing a new Chairperson but they found that by a notification dated 19.5.1999 issued by the Executive Officer of Imphal Municipal Council, the Councillors were informed that the meeting for electing ...

Smt. Narayani Sharma Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

W.A. Shishak, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.R. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. S. Das, learned Government Advocate. One Krishna Sharma, son of the petitioner while aged about 16 years, a school going boy, was arrested by Police on 29-7-91 in connection with Ambassa P. S. Case No. 9(7)91 under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. The said Krishna Sharma was produced before Magistrate and obtained police remand till 2nd August, 1991. On production before the learned Magistrate at Ambassa, the accused said Krishna Sharma complained of Police torture while in police custody during the aforesaid period of Police remand. I may state here that unfortunately the said complaint made by the accused person was not taken cognisance of.2. On 2nd August, 1991 after production before the Court, accused was remanded to judicial custody. While in judicial custody i.e. in jail, the said accused died on 10-8-91. The dead body of the accused was examined by some Doctors and the post-mortem repor...

Narayani Sharma Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

W.A. Shishak, J.1. Heard Mr. P.R. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. S. Das, learned Government Advocate. One Krishna Sharma, son of the petitioner while aged about 16 years, a school going boy, was arrested by police on 29.7.1991 in connection with Ambassa P.S. Case No. 9 (7) 91 under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. The said Krishna Sharma was produced before Magistrate and obtained police remand till 2.8.91. On production before the learned Magistrate at Ambassa, the said accused Krishna Sharma complained of police torture while in police custody during the aforesaid period of police remand. I may state here that unfortunately the said complaint made by the accused person was not taken cognisance of.2. On 2.8.1991 after production before the court, accused was remanded to judicial custody. While in judicial custody, i.e., in jail, the said accused died on 10.8.1991. The dead body of the accused was examined by some doctors and post-mortem report is...

Oil India Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Goswami

Court: Guwahati

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated July 6, 1995 passed in Civil Rule No. 1879 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge quashed the order dated March 23, 1994 (Annexure-U) and January 8, 1994 (Annexure-S) passed by the appellant company. Being aggrieved thereby, the Oil India Limited has preferred this appeal controverting the validity and propriety of the above decision.2. The respondent was serving as an Engineer in the appellant- company. He was sent on deputation to the Assam Indusrial Development Corporation (Refinery and Petrochemical Division) as Manager in the year 1987. While on deputation, he applied for appointment in IBP Company Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. The IBP Company offered appointment to the respondent as Senior Manager (Project) in Numaligarh Refinery, Assam. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the respondent requested the appellant-Company to allow him to go on voluntary retirement as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the...

Oil India Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Goswami

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2000)IILLJ415Gau

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated July 6, 1995 passed in Civil Rule No. 1879 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge quashed the order dated March 23, 1994 (Annexure-U) and January 8, 1994 (Annexure-S) passed by the appellant company. Being aggrieved thereby, the Oil India Limited has preferred this appeal controverting the validity and propriety of the above decision.2. The respondent was serving as an Engineer in the appellant- company. He was sent on deputation to the Assam Indusrial Development Corporation (Refinery and Petrochemical Division) as Manager in the year 1987. While on deputation, he applied for appointment in IBP Company Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. The IBP Company offered appointment to the respondent as Senior Manager (Project) in Numaligarh Refinery, Assam. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the respondent requested the appellant-Company to allow him to go on voluntary retirement as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the ...