Guwahati Court September 2000 Judgments

Nikhil Ranjan Bowmik Vs. Tripura GramIn Bank and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 26.9.1998 (Annexure-E) imposing on the petitioner penalty of with-holding ten yearly increments and recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,15,175 along with interest thereon and also the purported appellate order said to be passed by the Board of Directors, Tripura Gramin Bank and communicated by the General Manager of the Bank on 6.3.2000 and received by the petitioner on 29.3.2000 (Annexure-G). 2. The petitioner herein entered into service under the Tripura Gramin Bank, respondent herein as Filed Supervisor in 1980 and later on he was promoted as Branch Manager. On 11.8.1994 when the petitioner was working at Kadamtala Branch of the respondent Bank as Branch Manager, a Memo was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why a disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for sanctioning loans violating Head Office instructions that is Annexure-A to the writ application. The charges are broadly as follows...

Nikhil Ranjan Bowmik Vs. Tripura GramIn Bank and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2001)IILLJ133Gau

1. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 26.9.1998 (Annexure-E) imposing on the petitioner penalty of with-holding ten yearly increments and recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,15,175 along with interest thereon and also the purported appellate order said to be passed by the Board of Directors, Tripura Gramin Bank and communicated by the General Manager of the Bank on 6.3.2000 and received by the petitioner on 29.3.2000 (Annexure-G).2. The petitioner herein entered into service under the Tripura Gramin Bank, respondent herein as Filed Supervisor in 1980 and later on he was promoted as Branch Manager. On 11.8.1994 when the petitioner was working at Kadamtala Branch of the respondent Bank as Branch Manager, a Memo was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why a disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for sanctioning loans violating Head Office instructions that is Annexure-A to the writ application. The charges are broadly as follows :-...

Bina Rani Saha and ors. Vs. Sunil Das and ors.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J. 1. It is the mandate of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) is to determine the compensation which appears it to be just. In A.I.R. 1980 S.C., page 1354 the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : -'Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victimes do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plaincases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising...

Saminran Deb Roy Vs. Tripura Road Transport Corporation anr.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 7-12-1995 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge, West Tripura District) in case No. T. S. (MAC) 201 of 1994. 2. We have heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.C. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent - TRTC. 3. The admitted position in this case is that the appellant herein met with an accident and the Bus involved belonged to the respondent No.1. In the accident, the claimant was injured and his left leg was amputed. Now, he is living on with an artificati limb. The claimant is an employee of the Rural Deveolpment Department under the Government of Tripura. The Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs. 50.000 along with Rs. 15,000 for treatement and for loss of their conjugal life. That amount has already been paid. 4. The law regarding the award of compensation as mandated in section 1...

Milan Rani Devi (Bhattacharjee) Vs. Sushil Roy and anr.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J. 1. We have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned senior counsel for theRespondents. 2. Learned Advocate for the Appellant places reliance on the following two decisions, (i) 1999(5) SCC 645, Ubaiba, Appellant v. Damodaran, Respondent and (ii) AIR 1993 Sc 1616, RukminiAmma Saradamma, Appellant v. Kallyani Sulochana and others. Respondents, where the Supreme Court was considering Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, which is in parameteria with Section 22 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975. The Supreme Court in that case in paragraph 21 pointed out as follows :- '21. We are afraid this approach of the High Court is wrong. Even the wider language of S.20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciat...

Milan Rani Devi (Bhattacharjee) Vs. Sushil Roy and anr.

Court: Guwahati

J.N. Sarma, J.1. We have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned senior counsel for theRespondents.2. Learned Advocate for the Appellant places reliance on the following two decisions, (i) 1999(5) SCC 645, Ubaiba, Appellant v. Damodaran, Respondent and (ii) AIR 1993 Sc 1616, RukminiAmma Saradamma, Appellant v. Kallyani Sulochana and others. Respondents, where the Supreme Court was considering Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, which is in parameteria with Section 22 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975. The Supreme Court in that case in paragraph 21 pointed out as follows :-'21. We are afraid this approach of the High Court is wrong. Even the wider language of S.20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciating t...

Bina Rani Saha and ors. Vs. Sunil Das and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: II(2001)ACC642

J.N. Sarma, J.1. It is the mandate of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) is to determine the compensation which appears it to be just. In A.I.R. 1980 S.C., page 1354 the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : -'Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victimes do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plaincases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising th...

Saminran Deb Roy Vs. Tripura Road Transport Corporation anr.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: II(2001)ACC506,2001ACJ1603

J.N. Sarma, J.1. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 7-12-1995 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge, West Tripura District) in case No. T. S. (MAC) 201 of 1994.2. We have heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.C. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent - TRTC.3. The admitted position in this case is that the appellant herein met with an accident and the Bus involved belonged to the respondent No.1. In the accident, the claimant was injured and his left leg was amputed. Now, he is living on with an artificati limb. The claimant is an employee of the Rural Deveolpment Department under the Government of Tripura. The Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs. 50.000 along with Rs. 15,000 for treatement and for loss of their conjugal life. That amount has already been paid.4. The law regarding the award of compensation as mandated in section 168 of ...

Ganesh Chandra Baruah and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. B. Dutta, learne counsel for the respondents - Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd.2. By this common judgment both the Civil Rule No. 6451/98 and WP(C) no. 2822/99 are being disposed of as common question of facts and law arises in both the cases.3. Three writ petitioners were serving in Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'HFC') which is a Govt. of India Undertaking. The age of retirement in the public sector undertakings was 58 years and vide office memorandum No. 20.5.1998 it was enhanced to 60 years. The three writ petitioners, therefore, approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 6451/98 for a direction that they should be allowed to continue till attaining the age of 60 years. Some interim order was passed by this Court. The respondent - HFC contested the matter by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that HFC is a sick organisation and in view of subsequent office memorand...

Surender Kumar Das and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.5.1998 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 5672/1997 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellants No. 1,2 and 4 are working as Subject Matter Specialist in the Department of Diary Development, Government of Assam and the appellant No. 3 is working as Assistant Director in the said Department. In exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Assam has framed the Assam Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairying Service Rules, 1988, (for short, 'the 1988 Rules'), which regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of members of the Assam Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairying Service. Sub-rule (5) of rule 11 of the 1988 Rules provided that 25% of the vacancies available in a year would be filled up by direct recruitment in all the ...