Guwahati Court February 2000 Judgments
T. Tualzathang Vs. State of Manipur and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
N.S. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Gogonchandra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. The judgment and order dated 14.12.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 92 of 1987 is the subject matter under challenge in this writ appeal. The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows :2. The petitioner, appellant herein was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 9.2.1967 and later on, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk and he was posted as Head Clerk - cum-Cashier in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur and while he was working at Churachandpur under the respondents concerned, he was placed under suspension on 19.4.1984 and thereafter, a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him. The memorandum of charges, documents and list of witnesses in support of the statement of misconduct were furnished to the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Ashem Bira Singh Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
P.C. Phukan, J. 1. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the Resolution No. 2(a) dated 29.8.1996 passed by the Thoubal Municipal Council refusing to accept the appointment of the petitioner by the State Government as a member of the said Council and also for directing the said Municipal Council to administer oath to him as member of the said Council. 2.1 have heard Mr. B.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh, learned sr. counsel for the respondents. I have also considered the records of the case. 3. The petitioner was appointed by the State Government as a memberof the aforesaid Municipal Council under Section 15(3) of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994, hereinafter called the Act, vide order dated 17th January, 1995 (Annexure-A/1) read with the Corrigendum dated 6.2.1996 (Annexure-A/2). By a letter dated 17.2.1996 (Annexure-A/3), the petitioner informed the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Tarit Ranjan Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
1. This Review Application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.7.1998 dismissing the Original Application No. 151 of 1991. This Tribunal dismissed the O.A.holding that the nature of work , duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers to one of which the applicant belonged were not same. This conclusion was arrived at relying on para 46.34 of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations, the factors like similarity of job contents, status and responsibilities were not similar to that of the applicant. There existed difference between the applicant and the Stenographer Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat with respect to the job responsibilities. Besides, the Tribunal came to such conclusion on the ground that the applicant in his case had not made any claim to the effect that his responsibilities were same or similar to those of the Stenographers Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat.2. It has been stated in the Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Sailen Konwar Dutta and Etc. Etc. Vs. Satya Capital Services (P) Ltd., ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. The above noted four cases relate to the same subject matter involving same factual as well as legal controversies, hence all these cases have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In Writ Appeal Nos. 22/2000 and 23/ 2000, judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15-10-99 in W.P.(C) No. 4725/99 and W.P.(C) No. 4724/ 99 have been challenged and by means of W.P. (C) No. 241/2000 and W.P. (C) No. 462/ 2000 opening of the tenders of M/s. Satya Capital Service (P) Ltd. and M/s. V. K. Jasrasaria & Sons has been challenged, 3. We have heard Shri N. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellants in the two appeals and for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 462/ 2000. Shri A. K. Phookan for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 241/2000, Shri R. Gogoi and Shri O. P. Bhati on behalf of the respondents as well as the State Counsel. 4. On 26-8-99 the Commissioner of Excise issued Tender Notice for supply of potable alcohol/ re...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mizoram Vs. Sri Lalrinawma and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
M.L. Singhal, J. 1. This is a reference under Rules for the Regulation of the Procedure of Officers Appointed to Administer Justice in the Lushai Hills, 1937 made by Smt. Lucy Lalrinthari, Addl. District Magistrate (J), Lunglei in G.R. No. 149/92 Lunglei P.S. Case No. 111/92. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J) has convicted the two accused persons under Sections 449/392/302, I.P.C. and has sentenced each of the accused for imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C, 10 years R.I. for offence under Section 392, I.P.C. and 10 years for offence under Section 449, I.P.C, the sentences are to run concurrently.2. We have heard Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram and Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for both the accused persons.3. The prosecution story as has emerged from the evidence brought on the record is that on 4-5-1992 at about 9 p.m. the two accused namely Sri Lalrinawma and Sri Lalbiktluanga entered the house of the deceased M...
Tag this Judgment!National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Manipur and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
N.S. Singh, J.1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner, namely, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise) Regd. office Hemkunt Tower, 98 Nehru place, New Delhi - 110 019, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-Corporation' sought for a direction or order declaring that the State of Manipur and the Chief Engineer, Electricity Department, Government of Manipur, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are not entitled to levy tax on sales of electricity effected by the petitioner-Corporation to the States of Nagaland and Assam, the 3rd and 4th respondents herein, and for quashing the notice/demand for payment of sales tax for power for Rs. 71,21,27,675 (rupees seventy-one crores twenty one lakhs twenty-seven thousands six hundred and seventy five only) made by the respondent No. 2 vide Bill No. SCD/EE/ST/89-90/17 dated the July 27, 1989 as in annexure VI to the writ petition coupled with a prayer for issuing permanent injunction against the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Jalini Brahma and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Shri A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Sur learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri T. Chutia, learned Government Advocate for the State of Assam. 2. The 54 Nos. of petitioners before this Court were appointed as Female Attendants in the various Primary Health Centres, for short P.H.C. from the year 1979 to 1994. Although the appointments were by the State of Assam but they were appointed under the Centrally sponsored scheme under which the petitioners were paid remuneration @ Rs. 50/- per month. The writ petitioners are continuing to serve at the fabulous salary of Rs. 50/- per month to get their soul and body intact. From time to time the petitioners made applications, representations before the State Government as well as the Central Government but both the Governments remained oblivious of their problem and the petitioners are continuing to serve and suffer. Petitioners have now approached this Court under Article 226 of th...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Ghosh Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution a very short but interesting point has come up for decision by this Court. In this regard I have heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U. B. Saha, the learned senior Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. D. C. Nath, Advocate for the State-Respondents.2. The petitioner is a Class II enlisted contractor under the Tripura State Public Works Department and he has been executing several contract works under the respondent-Government. In response to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14-9-1999 (Annexure-3) and dated 1-10-1999 (Annex-ure-4) for certain works shown in the N.I.T. the petitioner submitted his lenders in respect of category No. 3 of NIT dated 14-9-1999 and category No, 1 of NIT dated 1-10-1999. The tenders were submitted in the printed forms which were obtained from the office. The concerned works for which the petitioner has applied for are indicated as below :-...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Dipchan Sarkar Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
H.K.K. Singh, J.1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 19-7-1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Sessions Case No. 22(N.T./D) of 1994 thereby convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part 2 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution as revealed in the F.I.R. is that on 12-6-91 in the morning, at about 6 a.m. the accused plucked fruit from the jack-fruit tree which was grown inside the compound of deceased Mohan Lal Sahaji in spite of the complaint and protest from the mother of the deceased. In the meanwhile, deceased also came to the spot and went to the Court-yard of accused and also made some altercation with the accused. Suddenly, the accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden stick namely, 'Ish' on his head and other parts of the body. Soon thereafter, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The dead body was bro...
Tag this Judgment!A. Tomba Meetei Vs. Smt. G. Satyabati Devi
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
H.K. Sema, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-11-99 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal in Criminal complaint case Nos. 3/99, 2/99 thereby inter alia ordered to proceed with the trial by following the procedure prescribed in a summon case. The learned Court below further held that the provision of Section 251, Cr.P.C. can be still complied with as the stage of the trial was only in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 who is the complainant herself. Therefore, no injustice or prejudice has been caused to any of the parties.2. I have heard Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel for the Revisionist as well as Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The sole question posed for determination in this petition is, whether the complaint Under Section 499 IPC, and the punishment prescribed Under Section 500, IPC is to be tried by following the procedure prescribed in a summon case or in a warrant case. To answer this question, it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »