Guwahati Court January 2002 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.
Paradise Hotel and Restaurant Vs. Airport Authority of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
D. Biswas, J.1. Received an application filed under Sections 8, 9 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Seen the application and certified copy of the arbitration agreement. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Register an Arbitration Misc. Case under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Seen also the prayer submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act for maintenance of status-quo by way of interim injunction as regards possession of the petitioner's business at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner. On this point, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a very recent decision of the Apex Court AIR 1999 SC 565. It appears that for ends of justice status-quo as regards petitioner's possession at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport has to be maintained. Hence, I grant under Sec...
Tufanialonga Tea Company Ltd., Kolkata and ors. Vs. State of Tripura a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner No. 1-Company and the petitioner No. 2-Com-pany in CM Application No. 6/2001 are owners of Tufanialonga Tea Estate and Laxmilonga Tea Estate located at Teberla, Tripura West. On 13-11-1986. Tripura Tea Companies (Taking Over of Management of Certain Tea Units) Ordinance, 1986, was promulgated by the Government of Tripura and the management of the said two Tea Estates besides other Tea Estates was taken over under the said Ordinance for a period of 5 years. The Ordinance was substituted by an Act. A certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for non-payment of land revenue and the Tea Estates of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were sold on 4-6-1987 at a token price of Re. 1/-and the sale was confirmed on 27-7-1987. The two petitioner Companies challenged the Ordinance and the Act and the sales of the Tea Estates in the certificate proceeding in Civil Rule No. 67/94, by Judgment dated 9-4-1999, a Division Bench of this court wh...
Subhas Chanda Vs. Sarbajaya Sen (Chanda)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
R.S. Monica, C.J. 1. The parties before me are the husband and wife. The petitioner is the husband whereas the respondent is the wife. 2. The parties were married to each other in the year 1991 and out of their wedlock a female child was born on 27.9.1992. Between the husband and the wife there are some matrimonial problems, going on and cases are pending against each other in both Civil and Criminal Courts. Respondent (wife) had filed a Misc. Case No. 23/97 in the Court of the District Judge, Lakhimpur for the custody of the minor child. This case under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was registered on 21.4.1997 as Misc. Case No. 23/97. On 9.5.1997 the following order was passed by the District Judge, Lakhimpur ; 'Record put up on the strength of the petition No. 64/97. Petitioner prays for production of her minor daughter from the custody of the Respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondent to produce the minor daughter on the ...
Nilima Barman Vs. Ratima Barman
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
R.S. Mongia, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, Smt. Ratima Barman.2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which arises under the following facts and circumstances.3. The respondent, Smt. Ratima Barman, had moved an application under Section 145 of the Cr P.C. before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Executive Magistrate, Guwahati) on 10.7.1989 against Smt. Nilima Barman (now petitioner). It was averred in the petition before the Executive Magistrate that the petitioner before the Executive Magistrate., i.e., Smt. Ratima. Bamiano is the wife of late Krishna Ram Barman and co-owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 9 Lechas, covered toy Patta No. 235, Day No. 933, in village Singimari, Mouza Pub-Bongshor, and further alleged that she was in possession of the said land till 15.5.1989. She was away from her house on 15th and 16th May. 1989. On 1...
Anjali Devi Thapa and ors. Vs. Sandhya Debi Thapa
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. These two civil misc. applications bearing Nos. 49 of 2001 and 51 of 2001 are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.2. The plaintiff-respondent in both the applications filed a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the respondent-petitioners. Now the stage of the suit is at the second appeal stage. Originally the suit was decreed and the decree came in appeal and in second the appeal suit was remanded. The suit was again decreed after remand. Against the decree both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed appeals and both the appeal were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Now the defendants have filed two second appeals which have been registered as R.S.A. No. 15/2000 and R.S.A. No. 16/2000. In the midst of hearing of the aforesaid two appeals which arose out of the same original decree, the plaintiff-petitioner herein has filed two separate applications praying for the same relief, i.e., amendment of the plaint.3. The p...
Keshab Kanti Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.1990 of the Governor of Tripura imposing penalty of with-holding of 3 (three) increments of pay with cumulative effect to the petitioner (Annexure-O to the writ petition) and also the letter dated 28.5.1992 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura by which the review application of the petitioner was rejected (Annexure-V to the writ petition). 2. At the relevant time the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. II at Kumarghat and in course of his duty he issued an indent for supplying of 2000 bags of cement from Stores Division, Arundhutinagar, Agartala, when cement could easily be collected from the nearest stock available at Dharmanagar. In connection with this the petitioner was put under suspension on 28.1.1983 and thereafter a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. 3. The charges...
Anup Kumar Sanyal Vs. Gakul Bey
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
R.S. Mongia, C.J.1. Shri Anup Kumar Sanyal, the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the First Party) had filed a petition under Section 145/146 CrPC against the Respondents Shri Gakul Bey (Mikir) and Shri Gopal Bey (Mikir) (both are brothers) and two others for drawing up proceedings for preventing breach of peace regarding possession of land described in the schedule to the petition. This petition was filed on 26.11.1992. the allegations made in the petition were that the first party purchased an area of 23 Bs 1 K and 5 Ls of land described in the schedule from Respondent Shri Gakuk Bey by an unregistered deed dated 13.2.1990 and the vendor had delivered vacant possession of the land to the vendee first party on the same day and since then the first party was in peaceful possession of the land in question. In the petition it was alleged that the first party had grown sail paddy in the land and the same was about to be harvested and it was further alleged that on 9.1.1992 t...
Md. Farid Miah Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
H.K.K. Singh, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of CrPC arises from the Judgment and order dated 30.5.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Apeal No. 20(2) of 1996, thereby upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur against the petitioner for the offence under Section 279/337/427 IPC, but modifying the sentence to six months R. I. for the offence under Section 279 IPC, three months R.I. for the offence under Section 337 IPC (to run concurrently) and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence under Section 427 IPC, in default to suffer two months S.I. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur by his Judgment and order dated 12.3.1996 in G.R. Case No. 100/1995 convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279/337/427 IPC and passed the sentence to one year R.I. for the offence under Section 279 IPC, three months R.I. for the offence und...
State (Cbi) Vs. Partha Sanyal and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
R.S. Mongia, C.J.1. Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The C.B.I. (SPE), Silchar had filed a case against Shri Partha Sanyal, Accountant, Indian Bank, Silchar and one Shri K. James, before the Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was registered as Special Case No. 1 l(C)/93. So far as the respondent, Partha Sanyal is concerned, the Special Judge discharged him, vide order dated 12.5.1995, and so far as respondent, K. James is concerned, it was held that since he was not a public servant, his case need not be tried by a Special Judge. This Criminal Revision was filed under Section 397, CrPC, against the order of discharge, dated 12.5.1995, against Shri Partha Sanyal. Though Shri K. James is also arrayed as a respondent, but no relief has been claimed by the petitioner, CBI. 3. It may b...
Pu. Liansuama Vs. Wealth Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the applicability of the Wealth Tax Act, for short, the Act, on the Mizos residing within the State of Mizoram. 2. The petitioner was served with two notices dated 1.10.1996 to submit his returns for the year 1996-96 and 1996-97 under section 14(2) of the Act. The petitioner is a Mizo residing in the State of Mizoram and in the present application, the challenge to the applicability of the Act is on the following counts :- (1) In order to apply the provisions of any Central Act to the State of Mizoram, there must be a Notification to that effect by the President of India and in the absence of such Notification, the said Central Act is not applicable to the local inhabitants of Mizoram. (2) In view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act exempting the people belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and living in the scheduled tribe area for payment of income tax under the Incom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »