Guwahati Court May 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.
Subal Chandra Gope Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-13-2002
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Notwithstanding the embargo placed by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whether an insurer's comprehensive policy covering a vehicle makes it liable to pay, in respect of damage caused to any property of a third party, compensation of more than Rs. 6,000 is the question, which this appeal, preferred against the judgment and award, dated 4.10.1996, passed, in MACT Case No. 30/1984, by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur, raises. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus : Respondent No. 3 made an application before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 77,495 for the damage caused to their vehicle belonging to the Union of India as aresult of an accident. According to the claimant, on 2.3.1984 at about 11.15 AM, while their vehicle (a truck) was proceeding from the direction of Railway Station, a bus bearing registration No. ASD-9695, w...
Sh. Pachhunga Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-13-2002
S.K. Kar, J. 1. The petitioner Sh. Pachhunga, claiming entitled to all remedies under the Constitution of India being a Citizen of the Union, has presented this Petition for a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate. Writ/Order/Direction of the like nature commanding the respondents to make payment of compensation which has been already assessed in his favour along with any other relief that the Court may think fit and proper. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that within the area of Republic Veng, Aizawl, he was, along with others, allotted land but due to construction of a playground in 1985 there was landslide and his residential house standing thereupon became insecure for which he had to vacate the same. But in spite of representation Govt. took no action to compensate the victim who was affected. Excepting Saizahawla no other victims were paid compensation. State Sports Council and Director, Sports and Youth Services, Government of Mizoram acting on ...
Biplab Mazumdar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-11-2002
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and he was deputed for Initial training at JR/RPF Academy at Lucknow. After such initial training he went through some practical training of SIPF (Executive). He was then posted as Sub-Inspector. RPF at CIB/HQ and attached to Computer Cell with effect from 1.12.99 and he was to remain on probation for a period of 2 years. On 19.8.2000, the Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Fancy Bazar Branch, Guwahati lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police Station alleging that the Kohima Branch had issued a Bank Draft dated 10.8.2000 for Rs 100.00 in favor of the petitioner but the Bank Draft was fraudulently altered by using some chemical to Rs 1,00,000/- and presented for payment at Fancy Bazar Branch by the petitioner along with some other documents. Pursuant to the said FIR, Panbazar Police Station Case No. 253/2000 under Sections 468/420/34, IPC, ha...
Eleco Construction Co. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-2002
N.S. Singh J.1. Upon hearing Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Buragohain, Senior Government Advocate, Assam, and also on perusal of the available materials on records, I am of the view that this matter can be disposed of at this stage considering the simple nature of the case. Accordingly, it is disposed of on its own merits with the following short order.2. The petitioners herein questioned the validity of the deduction of sales tax at source under Section 27 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as, 'the Act of 1993') by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 from the bills of the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the works contract executed by the petitioners by contending, inter alia, that it is a failure on the part of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in clarifying the correct legal position in respect of the tax deduction at source under Section 27 of the Act of 1993 and Rule 35 of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993. According t...
Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Subhash Project and Ma ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-2002
N.S. Singh, J. 1 .These 2 (two) cases involve common questions of facts and law and, as such, these are taken up together for hearing today and, accordingly, the same are finally disposed of with the following judgment and order. 2. The common judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 26.3.2002 in Arbitration Petition Nos. 4/2002 and 5/ 2002 is the subject matter under challenge in these 2 (two) writ petitions. 3. The facts of the cases in a short compass are as follows : The present writ petitioner namely, Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, floated a notice inviting tender on 24.9.1990 inviting bids in respect of Tinsukia Water Supply Scheme and the respondent No. 1 M/s. Subhash Project & Marketing Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as Company, having been found to be the lowest, the bid of the respondent No. 1-Company was accepted by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Board and, thereafter...
Kenjum Riba and ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-2002
R.S. Mongia, C.J. 1. The appellants, 11 in number were appointed as Peon-cum-Mali/ Mali-cum-Chowkidar (Group D post) against clear vacancies after being interviewed by an Interview Board. They were so appointed by the order dated 30.3.2001. The appointment orders were issued by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the services were terminated by a simple order dated 2.7.2001 by the Deputy Commissioner stating that 'the services of the newly appointed Peon-cum-Mali/ Chowkidar-cum-Mali are discontinued with effect from 1st July, 2001 vide Deputy Commissioner's revocation order No. 5985 dated 27.6.2001.' This order of termination was made the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 947(AP)/ 2001. The main ground of attack was that the impugned order of termination had been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The pleas taken by the Respondents were that (i) there had been no proper advertisement for the posts in question and (ii) that the Interview Board w...
Manik Dey Vs. Gauhati High Court and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-07-2002
P.K. SarkaR, J. 1. I have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bhowmikl, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. U.B. Saha, the learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. D.C. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court and was working in the principal seat at Guwahati drawing Assam Pay Scale. Thereafter the Government in accordance with the judgment of Civil Rule No. 173 of 1990 introduced Tripura Scale of Pay for the employee of the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court and accordingly the petitioner opted for Tripura Scale of Pay by his letter dated 1.6.1995. The Tripura Scale of Pay was introduced by an order of the Registrar, Agartala Bench dated 19-5-1995 with the approval of the Finance Department of the Gov...
Tago Doke Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-07-2002
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Since both these Writ Petitions involved common question of law, based on identical facts, I propose to dispose of both the Writ Petitions by this common Judgment & Order. 2. Heard Mr. R. Deka as well as Mr. J. Hussain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and also heard Mr. P.K. Mushahary, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh representatingthe State of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. Despite notice and several orders passed by this Court no affidavit-in-opposition has been preferred by the State/Respondents not has any record been produced when the matter is called on for hearing. 4. That being the position, since no affidavit-in-opposition is forthcoming from the State/Respondents, the averments and statements made in the Writ Petitions may be deemed to be admitted by the State/Respondents. 5. The case of the Writ Petitioners is that by impugned order dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petitions) the Sub-Divisional Officer, West Siang...
Yare Tali and ors. Vs. Tapak Tali
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-06-2002
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Etc. learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 22.9.2000 issued by the Circle Officer, (J), along on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District in Misc. case No. 2/2000 dismissing the application, under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2000 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District in Misc. case No. 2/2000 dismissing the case for default. 3. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that on the date, i.e., 4.9.2000, fixed for hearing, the counsel for the appellant could not be present before the Court due to the death of his mother and eventually the appeal was dismissed for default. Being dis-satisfied with the said dismissal, the appellants' counsel immediately preferred an application under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9...
Damudhar Prasad Verma Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-06-2002
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard MR. T. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.H. Nabm, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, A.P. 2. This matter relates to the non payment of contractual dues to the petitioner who completed the supply works in terms of the Work Order. The State Respondents particularly Respondents 5 and 7 and also Respondent 6 by filing their respective counters admitted a sum of Rs. 4,77,275 and Rs. 36,000 as due amount remained outstanding to be paid to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the outstanding amount has already been admitted by the State-Respondents as mentioned above, this case is covered by a decision of this Court reported 2001 (1) GLT 332 Swadesh Lal Roy v. State of Assam and others (Annexure-D to the writ petition) and has prayed that this writ petition may be disposed of by giving the same relief to the petitioner. 4. On completion of the Government contract, the Government is l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »