Guwahati Court February 2003 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.
Narendra Chandra Kalita and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Both the writ petitioners claiming to be owners of patta land measuring 1 (one) Katha 12 (twelve) Ls and 3 (three) Ks 14 (fourteen) Ls respectively covered by Dag No. 844 of Periodic Patta No. 488 in Dharapur Village under Rani Charani Mouza, have instituted the present proceeding assailing the action of the authority in demolishing, a part of their dwelling houses standing on the aforesaid land. Appropriate intervention of this Court to arrest the ongoing eviction proceeding and to restrain the authorities from proceeding any further with such eviction and to compensate the writ petitioners for the loss suffered by them on account of the unauthorised demolition carried out on 27.6.1997 are the specific prayers made in the writ petition.2. According to the writ petitioners, they are the owners of the aforesaid land as described hereinabove and have been in possession of the said land by constructing their dwelling houses standing thereon. Portions of the aforesaid l...
Jibeswar Thakuria Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed by the respective writ petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the orders of transfer transferring them from one place of another. It is their case that such orders of transfer are not founded on bona fide exercise of power, but have been issued illegally and arbitrarily and not in any public interest. According to them the orders have been issued due to extraneous consideration and out of sheer favouritism. Considering the allegations made in all three writ petitions towards assailing the orders of transfer I have decided to dispose of all the three writ petitions by this common Judgment.2. The petitioner has been serving as Assistant Professor of Medicine in Guwahati Medical College and Hospital to which post he was promoted on 5.6.2002. He has been transferred to Silchar Medical College, Silchar by the impugned order dated 21.10.2003. When his representation dated 23.10.2003 against the said order...
Md. Motiur Rahman Vs. Mustt. Achia Khatoon and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision has arisen out of the order, dated 29-8-2002, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 2, Guwahati, in Title Execution No. 2/2001 arising out of Title Suit No. 22/84. whereby the petitioners application made under Order 21, Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151, CPC was rejected.2. In a nutshell, material facts and various stages, which has given rise to this revision, may be narrated as follows :-- For execution of the decree granted in title Suit No. 22/84, Title Execution NO. 2/ 01 aforementioned was commenced, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 8 being the decree holders and opposite party No. 9 being the judgment debtor. The petitioner who was not a party to the suit or to the execution proceeding, made an application in the execution proceeding under Order 21, Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC, his case being that he had been in occupation and use of a portion of the suit property since 1972 by constructing his dwelling houses thereo...
Prasanta Kr. Modi and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who describe themselves as next of kin of persons, who had sacrificed their lives or who had been rendered physically disabled permanently, while participating in the Assam movement on the problem of foreigners, have approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate Writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated 1.10.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and order dated 4.10.2002 (Annexure-8 in the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4, namely, Director of Higher Secondary Education, Assam, whereby the appointments of the petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff of schools have been kept in abeyance.2. In a narrow campas, the case of the petitioners may be put as follows :-The Government of Assam decided to make appointment, in public services under the Government of Assam, of the next of kins of those who had sacrificed their lives as well as those, who ...
Bhowal Traders and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
D. Biswas, J.1. Heard Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. S.K. Muktar, learned Counsel and Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel. 2. The petitioner M/s Bhowal Traders is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor thereof. The petitioner firm deals in the business of importing, exporting and sales of 'dry fish' in the State of Assam having its place of business at Jagiroad in the District of Morigaon. 3. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 8.10.2002 (Annexure-H) under Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act requiring the petitioner No. 2, the proprietor of the firm to produce all the relevant books of account and other documents relating to the accounting year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 before the Inspector of Taxes, Morigaon. The said notice was issued in o...
Moti Kumari and ors. Vs. Md. Habibur Rahman
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision has arisen out of the order, dated 13.12.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1 Kamrup in TS No. 116/98, rejecting the petitioner-defendants' application made under 0 26 Rule 9 of the CPC seeking local investigation. 2. In a nutshell, material facts and various stages, which have led to the present revision, may be narrated as follows : (i) The plaintiff-opposite party instituted TS 116/98 aforementioned, his case being, briefly stated, thus : The plaintiff's father, Hafizuddin Ahmed was the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff's father gifted the suit property to the plaintiff and pro forma defendant by executing a Deed of Gift on 8.8.1972 and delivered possession thereof to the donees concerned. The petitioner accordingly became a co-owner of the suit land and, upon amicable partition between the donees concerned, the petitioner became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff intended to construct hi...
Saidur Rahman Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Amitava Roy, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court, has assailed the order dated 4.11.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, discharging him from service. At the relevant time the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Teacher in Mahimari Senior Madrassa (Pre-Sr. Section).2. I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.3. The case of the petitioner in short is that he had passed the H.S.L.C. Examination in the year 1976 and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the preparatory section of the Mohimari Senior Madrassa (herein after referred to as Madrassa) by the Managing Committee thereof by communication dated 26.2.1979. His appointment was approved by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education, Assam by order dated 24.2.1986 subject t...
Anil Chandra Deka Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-8-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Noagaon in Sessions Case No. 44(N) of 1996 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 5-1-96 at about 8 a.m. the accused appellant caused the death of his mother Smt. Padmawati Deka by giving dao blows on her neck, near the sugarcane field of one Dulal Baruah. From the place of occurrence, it is alleged that the accused came to Jajori Police Station at about 9 a.m. and reported the said incident whereafter he was detained in the police Station. It is the further case of the prosecution that at about 9.30 a.m. on the same day, a written ejahar (exhibit-1) with regard to the occurrence was lodged at the said police station by one Edhan Ch. Deka, P.W. 3, who is the uncle of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid ejahar, Jajori...
Williamson Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
1. Heard Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. For the assessment year 1988-89 the order of assessment was passed in respect of the assessee Namdang Tea Company (India) Limited. The Revenue having by the order of assessment preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was barred by limitation. In paragraph 13 of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal it has been held that the explanation submitted for condonation of delay is not sufficient. The Tribunal has, therefore, dismissed the appeal as barred by time. However, after declaring the appeal to be barred by time the Tribunal has entered into the merits of the case and remanded the issue for reconsideration of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this direction given by the Tribunal the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted t...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
P. G. Agarwal, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as the question of law involved in both these appeals are identical. The writ appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.8.2001 in W. P. (C) No. 6016/2001 and order dated 30.8.2000 in W.P. (C) No. 6052/2000. Writ Petition (C) 6016/2000 was filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh challenging the Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the respondent State of Maharashtra. The writ petitioner also challenged the letter dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998 and 8.11.1998 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the State of Arunachal Pradesh organizes lottery under the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and likewise, the Maharashtra Govt. also organizes lotteries in their State. The State of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998, for short, the Act, framed certain Rules and Rule 9, according to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »