Guwahati Court February 2001 Judgments

No. 7 Bothagathia Dipling Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. State of Assam ...

Court: Guwahati

1. The matter relates to settlement of No. 7 Bothabeel fishery, hereinafter referred to as 'the Fishery', in favour of the respondent No. 4. Petitioner No. 7 Bothagathia Dipling Meen Samabai Samity Ltd., for short 'the Society' has challenged the impugned order of settlement of fishery in favour of the Private respondent No. 4. The case of the society is that it consists of 100% actual fisherman and its members reside in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The settlement of the above fishery during the earlier periods has a chequered history. In the year, 1988 the fishery was settled with the respondent No. 4 but subsequently it was cancelled and it was settled with the petitioner's society. The said order of settlement was challenged by the private respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 1792/1999 and subsequently Writ Appeal No. 290/98. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of on compromise providing that the respondent No.4 will be entitled to operate the fishery till 31.3.1999. On 16.3.1999...

Nirmal Narzary and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Y.K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Mr. P.K. Mushahari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7,8 and 9 and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam. 2. Bodoland Autonomous Council, for short, BAC, was constituted vide Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993, with the object to grant autonomy to a particular community, namely, Bodo, living with the defined area under the Act. Sections 24 and 25 of the said Act provide for authority of BAC to regulate certain subjects and accordingly 38 subjects falling within the BAC area were transferred to the BAC and later it was delegated with executive power within its area relating to the above 38 subjects. Under Section 25(3) of the said Act, BAC has been delegated with power to recruit Class-III and Class-IV employees. 3. The present eight petitioners living in the BAC area had applied for certain posts of Forest Guard and Forester...

Maheshpur Tea and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mantala Tea Co. Ltd. and or ...

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. 1. These Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1997 of the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 15/96. 2. On 13.5.1977 M/s Mantala Tea Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed Title Suit No.49/77 in the Court of the learned Sadar Munsiff, Agartala. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit was that the plaintiff was the owner of Mantala Tea Estate and was carrying on the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of black tea. The plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs from the Assam Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 1) and mortgaged its tea estate and factory described in the Schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as security for the loan under mortgage bond on 7th April, 1969. The mortgage bondstipulated inter alia that the plaintiff will be at liberty to mortgage and hy...

Rameshwar Singh Vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also heard Mr. DR Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lineman on 1.3.1971 in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Jaintia Hills Electrical Circle, Meghalaya State Electricity Board and he continued as such till he was promoted to the post of Lineman-II with effect from 1.1.1982. By an order passed on 6th March. 1996, the petitioner along with others have been compulsorily retired from service as per provisions of Fundamental Rule 57(b) applicable in the State of Meghalaya. in this petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement. The order impugned is quoted below for ready reference:- 'No.PER-II/222/95/79 Dt.Shillong the 6th March, 1996. Based on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted vide Board's order No.MeSEB/GA/213/75/Vol.II/61 dated 6.10.1989 adopting Fundamental Rule 57(b) of Govt. of Meghalaya, and in t...

Rameshwar Singh Vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Guwahati

ORDER Based on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted vide Board's order No.MeSEB/GA/213/75/Vol.II/61 dated 6.10.1989 adopting Fundamental Rule 57(b) of Govt. of Meghalaya, and in the interest of the Board, the following employees of the Board are hereby compulsory retired from the Board's service on their attaining the age of 50(fifty) years or completing more than 25(twenty five) years of continuous service in the Board w.e.f. 11.3.1996. On retirement, they are allowed to draw 3(three) months pay and allowances in lieu to the mandatory notice. 1. Shri P.O. Shira. 2. Shri Joginder Rai. 3. Shri Rameswar Singh. 4. ........ 5. ......... Sd/-Illegible.Secretary.' 3. Although the petitioner has contended in this writ petition that he has been compulsorily retired as per provisions of the Fundamental Rule 57(b), the order reproduced above shows that it was in fact issued under the provisions of the Fundamental Rule 57(b). Petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirem...

State of Manipur Vs. Pheiroijam Joy Singh

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2001CriLJ2673

ORDER1. Heard Ms. Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. and also Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 90/99 arising out of FIR Case No. 179(11)99 LPS under Section 366/342/376/120-B IPC. On a pointed asking from this court, Ms. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. has submitted that this application may be treated only as an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 15.12.1999. The learned P.P. has strongly argued that the learned Sessions Judge has illegally and without considering the materials on record granted bail to the accused person, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the seriousness and gravity of the offence. Sa...