Guwahati Court May 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bidhan Chandra Dey Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-2001
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuing an appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the impugned order of suspension dated 22.2.1991 and also the order of dismissal dated 21.9.1994 and also seeks for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all retrospective service benefits.2. The petitioner's case, in short, is as follows:-While the petitioner had been in service as a Rifleman being posted under B Company of Tripura State Rifles, he was implicated in a murder case and as such the petitioner was kept under suspension vide order bearing No. TSR/85010746/BCD/Pers/91/5871-76 dated 25.2.1991 (Annexure-A) w.e.f. 22.2.1991 on the ground of pendency of the criminal case viz. Nutanbazar P.S. Case No. 6(2)91 under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was charge sheeted in the aforesaid criminal case and faced trial and unfortunately the petitioner was convicted under section 30...
H. Ali Vs. Employees State Insurance
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: May-17-2001
1. The legitimacy of the action of the respondents imposing penalty of forfeiture of 50% pension of the applicant has given rise to this proceeding in the following circumstances: The applicant at the relevant time was holding the post of Manager Grade II (II Employees' State Insurance Corporation). By Memorandum dated 17.1.1995 the Regional Director initiated a disciplinary measure against the applicant in terms of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations. The Article of charges accompanied by the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour as well as the list of documents by which a list of witnesses by whom the Article of charges were proposed to be sustained. The applicant submitted explanation in writing denying and disputing the allegations. In addition, the applicant also questioned the competence and jurisdiction of the very initiation of the proceeding. The respondent authority conducted enquiry by appointing an Enquiry...
Krishna Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-17-2001
1. By this common judgment WP(C) No. 118/2000 and 119/2000 are proposed to be disposed of since they involve common question law.2. The question to be answered in these petitions is whether an employee of a department has any indefeasible right to insist for his release on deputation to any other department.3. Before the question is taken up for discussion, it would be necessary to place on record the facts of both the cases. The writ petitioners are working as Engineers in Border Roads Task Force, in short the GREF. By an order passed an 16.8.2000, this court directed the respondents to grant permission/no objection certificate to the petitioners for deputation/outside employment within a period of one month. The respondents complied with the aforesaid order and eventually the writ petitioner have been appointed. When the time came for their release from the GREF, objections have been raised on the ground that there is deficiency in the cadre strength and, as such, the writ petitioner...
T.S. Rajamoni Vs. Randip Barua
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-17-2001
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. Heard Mr. P. Barthakur. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.2. This application under Section 482. CrPC has been filed by the petitioner Shri T.S. Rajamoni praying for quashing of Complaint Case No.l88C/93 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati.3. Complaint Case No.l88C/93 was filed by the respondent complainant alleging interalla that agreement was executed betweenthe complainant and the accused company to fabricate design and supply machinery, erect and Commission Cement Plant at Hundung in East Manipur District. The total value of the contract was initially at Rs.85 lakhs and subsequently it was raised to Rs. 118.25 lakhs. The complainant company made certain payment; but the work was not executed. However, the accused company dishonestly induced the complainant company to believe that the project would be completed as per the agreement and the complainant company believing on ...
Krishna Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-17-2001
1. By this common judgment WP(C) No. 118/2000 and 119/2000 are proposed to be disposed of since they involve common question law.2. The question to be answered in these petitions is whether an employee of a department has any indefeasible right to insist for his release on deputation to any other department.3. Before the question is taken up for discussion, it would be necessary to place on record the facts of both the cases. The writ petitioners are working as Engineers in Border Roads Task Force, in short the GREF. By an order passed an 16.8.2000, this court directed the respondents to grant permission/no objection certificate to the petitioners for deputation/outside employment within a period of one month. The respondents complied with the aforesaid order and eventually the writ petitioner have been appointed. When the time came for their release from the GREF, objections have been raised on the ground that there is deficiency in the cadre strength and, as such, the writ petitioner...
Bipulananda Pathak Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-11-2001
1. The petitioner has been working as a District Transport Officer under the Government of Assam since 1985. A show cause notice dated 29.3.1997 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department to the petitioner to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the said rules should be inflicted on him on the charges mentioned in the said show cause notice. Along with the said show cause notice a list of documents, a list of witnesses and statement of allegations on the basis of which the charges are proposed to be proved were also enclosed. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was required to submit his written statement in defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement in defence to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department in his letter dated 17th Apr...
Bipulananda Pathak Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-11-2001
1. The petitioner has been working as a District Transport Officer under the Government of Assam since 1985. A show cause notice dated 29.3.1997 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department to the petitioner to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the said rules should be inflicted on him on the charges mentioned in the said show cause notice. Along with the said show cause notice a list of documents, a list of witnesses and statement of allegations on the basis of which the charges are proposed to be proved were also enclosed. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was required to submit his written statement in defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement in defence to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department in his letter dated 17th April, 19...
Anirudh Dhanda and anr. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-2001
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.9.1995 passed in Sessions Case No. 54(S)/95 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against both the petitioners u/s 376/326/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard Shri A.K. Bhattacharya, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners and Mrs. K. Deka and Shri J. Singh, the learned PPs, Assam. 3. This case has a chequred history. It would appear that the case was initially investigated on two occasions by the State police and on both the occasions the police submitted final report. The matter was also referred to the CID for investigation and the CID also submitted final report. Eventually, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur by order dated 21.4.1995 rejected the third final report submitted by the C.I.D. and decided to proceed with the case. Accordingly, process was issued to both the petitioners. Eventually, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges as stated...
Mc Ledo Russel (India) Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and or ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-2001
D. Biswas, J. 1. By this common judgment. Civil Rule No. 4594 of 1994 ; Civil Rule No. 4596 of 1994 and Civil Rule No. 4598 of 1994 are proposed to be disposed of together as they involve a common question of law. 2. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-company, and Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned State counsel. 3. In these petitions, the notice dated October 6, 1994 (annexure III), issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam, has been challenged. By the aforesaid notice, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam, directed the petitioner-firm to submit the details of the allowances State-wise computing the same with reference to the Statewise export turnover and further required the firm to show cause as to why the 60 per cent. deduction allowed will not be added to the agricultural income for the assessment period between 1984-85 and 1988-89. The petition is also for a declaration that Rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939...
Mc Ledo Russel (India) Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer and or ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-2001
D. Biswas, J.By this common judgment, Civil Rule No. 4594 of 1994 ; Civil Rule No. 4596 of 1994 and Civil Rule No. 4598 of 1994 are proposed to be disposed of together as they involve a commonuestion of law.I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-company, and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned state counsel.2. In these petitions, the notice dated 6-10-1994 (annexure III), issued by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam, has been challenged. By the aforesaid notice, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam, directed the petitioner-firm to submit the details of the allowances statewise computing the same with reference to the statewise export turnover and further re uired the firm to show cause as to why the 60 per cent. deduction allowed will not be added to the agricultural income for the assessment period between 1984-85 and 1988-89. The petition is also for a declaration that rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1939, is ultra vires the Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »