Guwahati Court January 2001 Judgments
State of Mizoram Vs. Sh. M. Anand
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
1. Heard Learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State as well as Mr. George Raju, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India isdirected against the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Aizawl in GR case No. 2308/99 under section 8(1) of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act (MLTP Act) solelyon the ground of non-availability of the case record from the Bench section of that Court. Since there is no provision of appeal provided under the Act against such type of order of discharge, the State preferred this petition. 3. On 22-2-2000 being the date fixed for hearing of the Criminal case bearing number G-R.2308/99, the accused appeared but the case record was found missing. Waiting sometime, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused of the charge of having committed offence under section 8(1) of the MLTP Act. After some time, on the said date, the record was found traceable and was placed befo...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnupur Enterprises Vs. State of Manipur and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1. I have heard Mr. N. Kotiswer Sigh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HNK Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Somerjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents. 2. On request of the counsel of the parties the entire matter has been taken up for final disposal when the matter is listed in order column on 11.1.2001 for deciding a Misc. Case being C.Misc. Appeln. No. 623- of 2000 arising out of the present W.P.(C) No. 1559/ 2000 praying for vacation, alteration or modification of the interim order dated 1.12.2000. Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be finally heard and disposed of instead of deciding the Misc. Application as mentioned above considering the urgency of the matter. Accordingly the entire matter has been heard on merit. 3. The sole issue involved in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution pertains to the legality and validity of the office Memorandum dated 27.9.2000 issued by the Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Arundhuti Cables Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents-1 and 2 to declare the tender of the respondent No. 3 as informal and to reject the same forthwith, and to direct the respondents-1 and 2 to issue supply order in favour of the petitioner-firm at the rate quoted by the petitioner-firm in respect of items for which Notice Inviting Tender No. 03/2000.01 was issued by the respondent No. 2. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Small Scale Industrial Unit (for short, 'SSI Unit') located in the State of Tripura. By a notification dated 10.8.2000, the Government of Tripura in the Industries & Commerce Deptt., laid down a policy administering/ allowing 15% price preference to local SSI Units as per Tripura Incentive Scheme, 1995, while making Government purchase programme. The petitioner-firm being an SSI Unit located in Tripura is entitled to the said 15% price preference as per Tripura Incentive S...
Tag this Judgment!Naumi Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1. Heard Mr. N. Kerani Singh, ld. Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Umakanta appearing on behalf of thepetitioner and also Mr. C. Kamal, ld. Sr. CGSC representing the Union of India and others.2. The present case in hand has a chequered history. This is for the second time that the petitioner has to approach this court for redressal of his grievance as regards to his promotion to the higher post. The petitioner is a Commandant CRPF and has been functioning in the said capacity in 31 Bn CRPF at Pangei. His only grievance is that he has not been considered for his next promotion as Additional Dy. I.G. by calling the meet of the DPC with retrospective effect because of the down grading in the ACR so reflected was not communicated to him at the apportion moment prior to holding of the DPC meeting from April, 1997 onwards and further more reason so assigned by the authority concerned for giving such adverse remark reflected by comparison as claimed so at randomly put by the reviewing and accepti...
Tag this Judgment!Arundhuti Cables Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents-1 and 2 to declare the tender of the respondent No. 3 as informal and to reject the same forthwith, and to direct the respondents-1 and 2 to issue supply order in favour of the petitioner-firm at the rate quoted by the petitioner-firm in respect of items for which Notice Inviting Tender No. 03/2000.01 was issued by the respondent No. 2.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Small Scale Industrial Unit (for short, 'SSI Unit') located in the State of Tripura. By a notification dated 10.8.2000, the Government of Tripura in the Industries & Commerce Deptt., laid down a policy administering/ allowing 15% price preference to local SSI Units as per Tripura Incentive Scheme, 1995, while making Government purchase programme. The petitioner-firm being an SSI Unit located in Tripura is entitled to the said 15% price preference as per Tripura Incentive Scheme, ...
Tag this Judgment!Naumi Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1. Heard Mr. N. Kerani Singh, ld. Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Umakanta appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also Mr. C. Kamal, ld. Sr. CGSC representing the Union of India and others.2. The present case in hand has a chequered history. This is for the second time that the petitioner has to approach this court for redressal of his grievance as regards to his promotion to the higher post. The petitioner is a Commandant CRPF and has been functioning in the said capacity in 31 Bn CRPF at Pangei. His only grievance is that he has not been considered for his next promotion as Additional Dy. I.G. by calling the meet of the DPC with retrospective effect because of the down grading in the ACR so reflected was not communicated to him at the apportion moment prior to holding of the DPC meeting from April, 1997 onwards and further more reason so assigned by the authority concerned for giving such adverse remark reflected by comparison as claimed so at randomly put by the reviewing and accept...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnupur Enterprises Vs. State of Manipur and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1. I have heard Mr. N. Kotiswer Sigh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HNK Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Somerjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents. 2. On request of the counsel of the parties the entire matter has been taken up for final disposal when the matter is listed in order column on 11.1.2001 for deciding a Misc. Case being C.Misc. Appeln. No. 623- of 2000 arising out of the present W.P.(C) No. 1559/ 2000 praying for vacation, alteration or modification of the interim order dated 1.12.2000. Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be finally heard and disposed of instead of deciding the Misc. Application as mentioned above considering the urgency of the matter. Accordingly the entire matter has been heard on merit. 3. The sole issue involved in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution pertains to the legality and validity of the office Memorandum dated 27.9.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Taxe...
Tag this Judgment!Himangshu Ranjan Roy Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to make payment of compensation, solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, far the land measuring 0.22 acre as per direction of this court in First Appeal No. 19 of 1990. 2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to notification dated 15.1.1982 under sections 4, 5(A) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land measuring 0.65 acre belonging to the petitioner in Khatian No. 355, Jote No. 262, plot Nos. 705 and 1152 in Mouza-Harerkhala, was acquired by the State Government of Tripura. The possession of the entire land measuring 0.65 acre was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kamalpur Sub-Division, North Tripura on 12.12.1987. But compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, North Tripura, Kailasahar, for only 0.43 acre of land. In the reference to the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, the petitioner raised the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Himangshu Ranjan Roy Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to make payment of compensation, solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, far the land measuring 0.22 acre as per direction of this court in First Appeal No. 19 of 1990. 2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to notification dated 15.1.1982 under sections 4, 5(A) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land measuring 0.65 acre belonging to the petitioner in Khatian No. 355, Jote No. 262, plot Nos. 705 and 1152 in Mouza-Harerkhala, was acquired by the State Government of Tripura. The possession of the entire land measuring 0.65 acre was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kamalpur Sub-Division, North Tripura on 12.12.1987. But compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, North Tripura, Kailasahar, for only 0.43 acre of land. In the reference to the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, the petitioner raised the plea,...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Hiranmoy Sen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
1. The decision of the respondents communicated through D.O. No.PCC/FT/97 dated 4.2.2000 by the Deputy Director (Legal), Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi informing the Government decision declining to revise the pay scale of Senior Auditors in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department is the subject matter of this proceeding which has arisen in the following circumstances: The applicants, 149 in number, are Senior Auditors in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Assam, Meghalaya etc. at Shillong and Guwahati under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as IA and AD). The applicants were initially appointed in the erstwhile composite office of the Accountant General, Assam, Meghalaya etc., Shillong as Auditors in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 or as Selection Grade Auditors in the pay scale of Rs. 425-800. In the later part of 1983 proposals were made for restructuring of IA and AD with a v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »