Guwahati Court September 2001 Judgments
Food Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. An industrial dispute arose between the Food Corporation of India, and its workmen, and conciliation having failed, by an order dated 27.10.1993, the Central Government referred the following points in dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, (for short, 'the Tribunal') for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, 'the Act, 1947'):'Whether the claim of wages of 37 workers w.e.f. 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 (15 months) at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India is justified? If so, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to?'2. Written Statements were filed by the Management of the Food Corporation of India, (for short, 'the FCI') as well as the workmen represented by the General Secretary, FCI Workers' Union, the case of the FCI in its written statement before the Tribunal, inter alia, was that the 37 workers were engaged at Hapania by the Central Warehousing Corporation, (for short, 'The CWC'...
Tag this Judgment!Golap Chandra Bora Vs. Promod Chandra Lahkar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
D. Biswas, J. 1. This Second Appeal was admitted on 29,8.1991 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the learned Courts below had committed error in law in extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 60(6) of the Easement Act to the defendant No. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1991 passed in Title Appeal No. 11/89 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Tezpur affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 99/83. The appellant herein as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint covering an area of 12 lechas (approx.) after evicting the appellant and removing the kutcha structures erected thereon. The learned Munsiff dismissed the Suit with costs. The learned appellate Court also affirmed the said judgment which is impugned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kr. Saha Vs. Adir Kumar Deb
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
D. Biswas, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5.9.1995 passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 10/94. The Learned Munsiff. Karimganj dismissed Title Suit No. 81/198 filed by the respondents for eviction of the revision petitioner from the suit premises. Learned Assistant District Judge by the aforesaid Judgment allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Munsiff and decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendant with other consequential reliefs.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the revision petitioner was a tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 50 initially and subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100 per month payable according to Bengali Calendar Month, The petitioner-tenant failed to pay the rent for the month of Paush and Magh, 1394 B.S. an...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Lal Baruah Vs. on the Death of Kanak Chandra Baruah His L/R Il ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. The judgment and decree dated 8.8.1990 and 2.4.1990 respectively passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 2 (now re-designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division No. 2)), Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1996 is under challenge in this Second Appeal. By the impugned judgment the appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1986 passed by the learned Munsiff, No. 2, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 72 of 1986 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the land and house thereon by rejecting the defendant -appellant was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. 2. The plaintiff/respondent, being the owner of the suit premises, allowed his cousin, the defendant -appellant to stay in the said suit premises free of rent with a condition of payment of Municipal Taxes, revenues and electricity charges etc. and delivery of vacant possession of the same on demand of the plaintiff. In this regard, two agreements were exec...
Tag this Judgment!Snm Abdi Vs. Prafulla Kr. Mahanta and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
1. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1993 passed in T.S. No. 97/91 by the learned Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Guwahati. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Asstt. District Judge decreed the suit for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000.2. The suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 who was earlier the Chief Minister of Assam claiming that he was defamed by an Article published in 'Illustrated Weekly of India' Weekend December 8-9/ 91.That Article is quoted below:'Money and Muscle power The leadership of Prafulla Kr. Mahanta, deposed Chief Minister of Assam, is under serious threat from an influential sectiion of the Asom Gana Parishad, following the imposition of President's rule. Since 1985, Mahanta had remained not only the Chief Minister but also the President of the AGP.The happiest person in the wake of the presidential proclamation of November 28 'overthrowing' the AGP government was Home Minister Bhrigu Phukan, according toreliable sources...
Tag this Judgment!Sumal Das Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.5.1996 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 184 of 1996. 2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was appointed as Rifleman and was enrolled as such on 27.10.1993 under the Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Tripura State Rifles. He suffered some ailment for which he was sent to the. Police Hospital, Agartala and he received treatment at the said Hospital during the period from 14.2.1994 to 5.3.1994 and he was discharged from the hospital on 6.3.1994. Even after his discharge from hospital, the appellant did not join his duties and he was served with some notices asking to join in service and, thereafter, discharged from service by order dated 30.6.1994 passed by the Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Tripura State Rifles. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30th June, 1994, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Civil Rule No. 184 of 1996. In the said w...
Tag this Judgment!Bandana Dey Vs. Mallika Bardhan
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
D. Biswas, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.2000 passed by Learned Administrative Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 82 ATA/ 1998 whereby the promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Subordinate Engineer Grade-I (Draftsman Grade-II) has been quashed.2. I have heard Mr. B. R. Dey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the, respondents and also perused the impugned Judgment or the Learned Tribunal, and the pleadings and documents on record.3. The controversy in this petition relates to fixation of seniority vis-a-vis promotion of the Respondent No. 1. The question to be answered in this case is whether the services rendered by the writ petitioner as a Work Charged Trader could be taken into consideration for computing the seniority.4. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Work Charged Tracer on 11.2.1969 in the office of the Executive Engineer. Flood Contro...
Tag this Judgment!No. 29 Nekera/Nekeri Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of As ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
D. Biswas, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been tiled for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to settle the No. 29 Nekera Nekeri Fishery with the petitioner society. It appears that no interim order was passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion or at any time thereafter. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Majumdar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner society; Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. A.K. Thakur. the learned State counsel. 3. The fishery in question was settled with the petitioner-society for the period between 5.2.1997 and 4.2.2000 at an annual revenue of Rs. 39,952. The petitioner society sustained loss due to natural calamities and on 1.11.1999 submitted an application before the authority concerned for settlement/extension of the said fishery for the period upto 4.7.2007. The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon also submitted report to the Secretary to the Govt of Assam...
Tag this Judgment!No. 29 Nekera/Nekeri Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of As ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
D. Biswas, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been tiled for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to settle the No. 29 Nekera Nekeri Fishery with the petitioner society. It appears that no interim order was passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion or at any time thereafter. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Majumdar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner society; Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. A.K. Thakur. the learned State counsel. 3. The fishery in question was settled with the petitioner-society for the period between 5.2.1997 and 4.2.2000 at an annual revenue of Rs. 39,952. The petitioner society sustained loss due to natural calamities and on 1.11.1999 submitted an application before the authority concerned for settlement/extension of the said fishery for the period upto 4.7.2007. The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon also submitted report to the Secretary to the Govt of Assam in ...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Anoj Kumar Agarwalla
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
1. Both the appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee respectively in respect of the asst. yr. 1992-93 against the order of the CIT(A). Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same order of the CIT(A), we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. The common ground raised in both the appeals are in respect of addition made by the AO on account of daily wages in respect of contract business. The. AO has made an addition of Rs. 75,000 on the ground that the signatures and thumb impression of the labourers differed and hence he made an addition of Rs. 75,000 to the total income of the assessee.3. However, on appeal the first appellate authority was of the view that the difference in signature should not be adversely treated without properly examining the person concerned. However, he sustained an addition of Rs. 45,000 on estimate and granted a relief of Rs. 30,000 to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »