Guwahati Court March 2003 Judgments

Mariam Bibi Vs. Md. Rachman Ali

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Kar, J.1. This is a second appeal.2. It is seen that during pendency of the appeal a petition was filed, (Misc. Case No. 146/2001) praying for substitution of the legal heirs of the appellant-defendant No. 1 Abdul Ali, but no order was passed. The memo of appeal would stand corrected accordingly by substituting the names of Mariam Bibi and Jamiruddin, in place of appellant No. 1, as appellants No. 1 (a) and 1(b).3. The appellants have challenged the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and the substantial question of law which was framed by this Court goes as follows :--'Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata and accordingly is not maintainable in law.'4. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder. The respondent-plaintiff Rachman Ali instituted Title Suit No. 96/82 against appellant-defendant Abdul Ali (now substituted) and 21 others claiming decree for the declaration of his right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession with respect to t...

Ratna Kanta Kalita and ors. Vs. Kanak Chandra Kalita (Deceased by L.R. ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2004Gau31

S.K. Kar, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the connected records. This is a second appeal to challenge Judgment and decree dated 7-11-1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Div. No. 2 in T.A. No. 26/96 reversing Judgment and decree dt. 30-4-96 of Civil Judge. Jr. Div. No. 3 made in T.S. No. 267/94.2. Brief facts giving rise to institution of the suit, (TS 267/94) are as follows. Respondent/plaintiff late Kanak Ch. Kalita (Now Substituted by his legal heirs) alleged/ pleaded that on 1-11-93 appellant/principal-defendant No. 1, Ratna Kanta Kalita along with his wife and sons (defendant No. 2-5) forcibly trespassed unto his land with intent to dispossess him. That this land was inherited by him from his father and he was in separate possession of the same on the strength of amicable partition amongst the brothers, defendant No. 1 being one of his three brothers, since the year 1966 when amicable partition was...

Surinder Paul and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B. B. Deb, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners sought for quashing/setting aside the Standing Order No. 10/2000 dated 20.12.2000, so far it relates to 'medical categorisation' of C.R.P.F. officials, and also for quashing/ cancelling the Recruitment Rules for the post of Group-A (General Duty) officers of C.R.P.F. relating to medical categorisation. 2. The petitioners who are holding the posts of Commandant, Deputy Commandant and Assistant Commandant filed this writ petition contending, inter alia, that at the time of entry in service, their medical fitness had been tested in view of Rule 105 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules of 1955') and there was no provision of medical categorisation after entry in service at the relevant time. The rule making power as has been envisaged under Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1949') does never contemplate to frame any Rul...

Dimbeswar Chaliha Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and anr.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated, 22.1.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Sibsagar, in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1991, upholding and maintaining the judgment and decree, dated 11.4.1991, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sibsagar, in Title Suit No. 45 of 1987, dismissing the suit. 2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff-appellant's suit, as unveiled before the learned trial Court, was as follows :The plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as title holder thereof and he also had residential houses standing thereon, which had been let out by him. There were valuable trees and other plants on the suit land. On 1.2.1972, the respondents-defendants, with the help of labourers, trespassed into the suit land, pulled down the houses, cut down and damaged the trees, bamboo fencing, etc., standing thereon and widened the municipal road by encroaching upon the suit land. The plaintiff lodged Complaint Case No. 48 of 1972 under Se...

Sangang Area Horticulture Farming Co-op Society Vs. Commissioner/Secre ...

Court: Guwahati

H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aleng Vashum, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Asok Postsangbam, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Suresh as well as Mr. Jagjit, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this court for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondents alleging wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 1.12.2000 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1143 of 2000 by which this court directed the respondents to release the sanctioned amount within a period of two months from the date of passing of that order. The petitioner, complaining that court's order has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents, after serving legal notice, has come to this court for taking up contempt proceedings. 3. Court order dated 1.12.2000 was to be complied within 2 (two) months from the date of order. Thus, cause of action for contempt accused on expiry of the period of two months from 1.12.2000. Period of Limitation for initiation of ...

Sumanta Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Kar, J. 1. Heard learned lawyer, Mr. N. Dhar, appearing for the petitioner, also heard Mr. K. C. Mahanta, Addl. Senior Government advocate. 2. In brief, the petitioner's case is that he was granted tax concession by the appropriate authority till 6.7.1998 (Annexure 3) and accordingly he submitted tax return claiming concession to that extent for that period, but unfortunately, vide Annexure 5, a letter of superintendent of Taxes No. 1492 dated 22.6.1994, he was asked to submit return and pay tax contending that concession granted to him was valid only up to 31.3.1992. 3. He filed a representation (Annexure 6) pointing out the mistake and requesting fresh consideration of his case and giving adequate relief but the tax authority instead of taking any action on his representation proceeded ahead assessing the tax and directing the recovery of the same through Bakijai proceedings. Annexure 8 is a notice of such proceedings. 4. Opposing the submission made learned senior Addl. Gover...

Siraj Ali @ Seru Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal Under Section 374, CrPC, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.3.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 85(M)/92, whereby the accused appellant Sri Siraj Ali @ Seru was convicted Under Section 395, IPC, and he was sentenced to Rgiorous Imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400 in default further R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on the night of 27.4.1985 at Murarbori village under RS. Mayong, about 10 numbers of decoits entered into the dwelling house of Shri Ram Prasad Sharma and looted silver and gold ornaments and cash worth Rs. 55,000. The inmates recognized and identified three persons including the appellant Siraj AH and an FIR naming them was filed. During investigation, a test identification parade was also hold. The charge sheet was submitted against three accused persons Under Section 395/397, IPC.; During trial, the prosecution examined as many as six w...

Harindar Prasad Sahani Vs. Chanchal Ghose and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Amitava Roy, J 1. The order impugned an the present Civil Revision is one passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application Under Section 152 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the Code filed by the present petitioner for correcting the order dated 19.12.1997 decreeing the Title Suit No. 9/96 ex parte against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Sanapati for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. 3. The factual background of the case in short is that the present petitioner along with others filed a suit against the present opposite parties 1 and 2 as defendants and others as Proforma defendants in the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 2, Jorhat praying for a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession thereof. As the defendants did not contest the suit it proceeded exparte by the le...

Md. Zakir HussaIn Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. In a federal set up like ours, conflicts between Parliamentary and State enactments are not really uncommon. How to resolve such conflicts is also, by and large, well settled ; but every time, such a conflict is brought before the Courts for resolution, the Courts undertake a massive exercise. This happens not because of any kind of inherent disinclination, on the part of the Courts, to readily resolve such a conflict, but to ensure that in order to resolve such a conflict, the Courts, while interpreting with an open, liberal and modern mindset, the provisions of the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder, remain steadfast to the basic structures of the Constitution and while interpreting the Constitution, howsoever liberally, maintain not only the letter but also spirit of the basic and fundamental concepts of the Constitution. The present Writ petition invites this Court to undertake such an arduous exercise. In order to ensure that the States are not...

Haran Ali Sk. and ors. Vs. AainuddIn Dewan

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. Should the Court ignore a blatantly made attempt of misleading the Court by a seeker of justice on the ground that the person(s) approaching the Court is/are illiterate This is one of the prime questions, which this application, seeking codonation of delay, raises for determination.2. The respondent/Opposite party herein instituted, as plaintiff, Title Suit No. 440/1980 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri. By the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.1993 and 27.07.1993, respectively, passed by the learned Munsif, Dhubri, the said Title Suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Assistant District Judge, Dhubri, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 46/1993. The appeal ended in passing of a decree, on 20.12.1993, in favour of the plaintiff declaring his rights, title and interest over the suit property and confirming his possession thereon. Following the appellate decree, Title Execution Case 25/95 was initiated in the Court of Munsif No...