Guwahati Court December 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.
Chandra Lal Das and ors. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel along with Mr. A.K. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been laid against the Judgment and order dated 5.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 16(2)797 setting aside the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 21.5.1997 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura in connection with G.R. 97/1994 and remanding back the matter to the learned Trial Court for recording evidences of the 'remaining material witnesses' and for passing Judgment afresh accordingly. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that, on 13.5.1994 at about 6.30 a.m., the appellants-accused persons having formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of the informant, Smt. Bhagyabati Majumder and forcibly took a...
Jaleswari Devi Pashwan Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-15-2002
Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Mahanta, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. The petitioner claims to be an erosion affected person and contends that in between the Highway and the Dyke on the river Brahmaputra at Dibrugarh, a public bus stand was established by the Municipal authority in the year 1988. According to the petitioner, the Municipal authority had built up 25 stalls of pucca constriction and had let out the same for the purpose of business to various persons. A number of shop houses of kutcha construction had also been raised by the Municipal authority and one such shop house was allotted to the petitioner measuring 15 x 12 feet. According to the petitioner, she has been running her business in the said shop house and maintaining herself and her family from the earnings therefrom. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land for the last 10 years and also claims to have been regularly depositing the ren...
Ram Niwas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
I.A. Ansari, J.1. When the disciplinary authority initiates a disciplinary proceeding against his employee and appoints an enquiry officer for holding the enquiry, but does not care to find out from, or refuse to listen to, the . employee as to how the enquiry had progressed, whether the enquiry held was fair and when the disciplinary authority ignores the fact that the previous statement of a witness has been relied upon without producing the witness for cross-examination, when a confessional statement allegedly made by the employee as an accused to a police officer is relied upon without calling for the police officer as a witness at the enquiry and without ascertaining the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statement so made and when in suchcircumstances, the enquiry report is not furnished to the employee to enable him to have his say in the matter, can the finding of the enquiry officer and the penalty imposed in consequence thereof be sustained by the Courts are...
Hari Prasanna Acharjee Vs. State of Tripura and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
B.B. Deb, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The plaintiff-appellant preferred this second appeal against the judgment/decree dated 4.4.2002/17.4.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2001 affirming the judgment/decree of the learned trial court (Civil Judge, Jr. Division, South Tripura District Udaipur) in T. S. No. 19/98.3. The appeal is heard under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shortly, the plaintiff-appellant's case is as follows :Some land belonging to the plaintiff-appellant and his three brothers had been acquisitioned for public purpose by the State Government vide Notification dated 31.1.1981 under related provision of the Land Acquisition Act. The L. A. Collector following the provisions of law assessed the market rate of the land under acquisition and made the award apportioning the amount of aw...
Dabakato Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated 25.8.2001, whereby her service has been terminated. 2. In a nutshell, petitioner's case may be narrated as follows : the petitioner belongs to Adi tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. She hay studied upto 12th standard under the National Open School and holds diploma in type-writing with the speed of 33 words per minutes (hereinafter referred to as 'wpm'), In pursuance of an advertisement, dated 15.10.1999, issued by the respondent No. 1, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang district, inviting applications for the posts of LDC under the establishment of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Upper Siang district, the petitioner applied and after she came out successfully in the written test she had to undergo typing test and also viva voce and, upon being selected, she was, vide order, dated 14....
Bopai Poroik Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This case is a sad revealation of the insensitiveness of one human being towards preserving the dignity of another human being and it was ultimately with the help of a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the PIL') that the age old wrong done by one human being towards another human being was stopped by Court, but the wrong done has not yet been completely undone. 2. This case has a history and the history starts with a PIL, which was filed in 1985 in Madras High Court on behalf of the thousands of bonded labourers. The Apex Court, eventually, passed an order, on 13.5.1994, in this PIL, known as Union of Civil Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu or Ors., reported in (1994) 5 SCC 116) directing the States to, inter alia, identify bonded labourers and to identify the villages, where the practice of bonded labour was prevalent and to provide them employment and ensure rehabilitation of victims of age-old bonded labour system. 3. In the above backdrop, ...
Subhas Chandra Majumdar and anr. Vs. State of Tripura and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2002. 3. The petitioner-appellant's grievance is that he being a Govt. employee, he is entitled to be allowed 10 (ten) years age. relaxation in any Govt. employment as he belongs to Schedule Caste community. He applied for the post of TCS Grade II. Since he crossed the maximum age limit of 42 years, he was not allowed to sit for examination holding him to be ineligible. According to the related Regulations called as Tripura Civil Service and Tripura Police Service (Appointment combined Competitive Examination 9th Amendment, Regulations 2000, maximum age limit is prescribed under Regulation 5(b). For convenience sake, the related portion or the Regulation 5(b) is reproduced below : '(b) AGE A candidate shall not be below 21 years and over 37 years of age on the fir...
Satyendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 8.7.1996, passed by Sri B. Basar, learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Roing, inCase No. ELN/4/96 under Section 167 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, arising out of contravention of the order dated 11.4.1996 (Annexure 'A' to the revision petition) passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district, Roing, under Section 160 of the said Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition may, in brief, be stated as follows : By order, dated 11.4.1996 (Annexure A to the revision petition) made under Section 160 of the said Act, ;.he Addl. Deputy Commissioner. Dibang Valley district, Roing, as District Election Officer, passed an order requisitioning the residential quarter No. ENGG/IV/241 belonging to Public Works Department, Roing, stating therein to the effect that the said quarter, which was lying vacant, had been requisitioned for utilization thereof for election purposes by the Extra Assist...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bhaskar Construction Co. and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Amitava Roy, J. 1. Common questions of law plead to be answered in the above two revision petitions. Those were heard analogously and by this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both the petitions. 2. We heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. P.D.B. Baruah for the respondent. The factual foundation has to be laid to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties. 3. The Civil Revision Petition No. 16 (SH) of 2001 is directed againstthe judgment and order dated 24.8.1999 passed by the learned Assistant toDeputy Commissioner, Shillong in (Arb.) Misc. Case No. 36(1) of 1995 andthe judgment and order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the learned AdditionalDeputy Commissioner, Shillong in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6(1) of 1999. Thepetitioner, Union of India in the present revision is represented by the ChiefEngineer (AF), Air Force Military Engineer Service, Shillong Zone. T...
Jogeswar Borah Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.1. The petitioner, an Advocate at Golaghat Bar, was appointed in the Assam Judicial Service and he joined as. Judicial Magistrate on 13.2.1973. Later on, in due course the petitioner was promoted to Assam Judicial Service Grade-II and then to Grade-I in September, 1994. The petitioner was to complete the ago of 58 years on 31.12,2001. The Assessing Committee of the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mam'pur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) constituted by the Full Court of the High Court has considered the case of the petitioner under the Assam Judicial Officers (Retirement) on Superannuation Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1995') recommended not to continue the services of the petitioner up to the age of 60 years. The recommendation made by the Assessing Committee has been accepted by the Full Court of the High Court and consequent thereof the ordef has been issued by the Governor of Assam compulsorily retiring the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »