Guwahati Court June 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.
Sirimai Marbaniang Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard MR. V. K. Jindal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.2. These two writ petitions are taken together as the same questions of law and facts are involved.3. Brief facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are : (a) In W.P.(C) 358(SH)2002, the respondent No. 3 issued a notice inviting tenders dated 24.6.1998 for construction of Meghalaya Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Science, Shillong (including site preparation). The last date for receipt of the tenders was fixed as 15.7.1998. In response to the said Notice inviting Tenders (for short NIT), the petitioner submitted her tenders. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 25.3.1999 issued by the respondent No. 3 that the work will be allotted to her and accordingly she was allotted the work by work order dated 9.9.1999 at par of schedule of Rates for 1995-96. According to ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribuna ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. As the common question of law involved in these appeals, they are heard and decided together. The relevant facts in brief are that on 4.3.1992, two vehicles, one truck insured by M/s New India Assurance Company Limited and a Maruti Car insured by M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited met with an accident. In the said accident, the passengers travelling in the Maruti Car, Ranjit Sarkar, the husband of the claimant, Ms. Bithika Sarkar, died and the claimant, Ms. Bithika Sarkar received injuries. Claim petition was filed by the claimant, Ms. Bithika Sarkar, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, praying for compensation for the death of her husband and the claimant has filed another claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her. 2. During the pendency of the claim petition both the matters were referred to the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat held on 11.2.1996 has passed an Award of Rs. 60,000.00 in MAC Case No....
Ariene Mayne Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
B. Lamare, J.1. Heard Mr. S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel assisted by Miss. S. Sinha, for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. V.K. Jindal learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 12 to 19.2. Briefly stated the case is that the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC for short) conducted an examination for recruitment to the post of Meghalaya Civil Services and published the list of successful candidates. On the basis of the said selection made by the MPSC the respondent No 1, Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya published a Notification No. PER 68/81/117 dated 2.6.1982, whereby vide Commission Order appointed twenty-four Officers to the Meghalaya Civil Service on probation and in the same Notification they were posted to different places of posting. The petitioner joined, the Service on 18.7.1982, In the said Notification the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 2 above the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 19,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
P.P. Naolekar, C. J.1. The appeal has been admitted on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in allowing exemption under Section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on gains arising out of transfer of depreciated assets, when unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years was claimed and allowed to be set off ?'2. To answer the question, the brief facts necessary are--Assam Petroleum Industry is a company. The assessee derived income from house property as well as from his business dealing. The assessment year in question is 1991-92. During the previous year the assessee has received compensation from the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, for acquisition of its land and building. The assessee had invested the entire receipt of compensation by purchasing IDBI Bonds and claimed exemption of the capital gain under Section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The...
Baljit Singh Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Amitava Roy, J.1. A short question of considerable moment has been referred to this Division Bench following a difference in opinion of two Single Benches of this Court. The question which pleads to be answered can be paraphrased as follows.2. Whether an application for grant of bail under Section 438, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Code') before the High Court is maintainable for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (as amended)(for short 'the Act') in the face of Section 36A(3) thereof?3. We have heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 246/2003 and Mr. G.N. Sahewala, learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 464/2003 as well as Mr. P. Bora, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.4. These applications have been filed under Section 438 of the Code, the Bail Application No. 246/2003 relates to CID PS Case No. 52/2003 under Section 20(b)(1)/29 of the Act and the Bail Application No. 464/ 200...
Madhu Sudhan Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Amitava Roy, J.1. The petitioner, retired Head Assistant of the Assam State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in releasing his pension and other retirement benefits.2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Deka, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. M. Sarma Advocate for the Respondent Corporation. None appears for the State respondents.3. The fascicule of facts necessary for the adjudication of the issues involved may first be notice. The petitioner was appointed as LDA in the Assam State Transport Department under the Government of Assam on 10.6.1958. He was confirmed in the said post subsequently. In March, 1970 the Govt. of Assam constituted the Assam State Road Corporation which was eventually renamed as Assam State Transport Corporation. All employees of the State Transport Department i...
Sh. Lalsanglura Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 - 3 and Mr. Michael Zothankhuma for private respondents. 2. The petitioner Lalsanglura had participated in a selection process for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police : Assistant Commandant for which a competitive examination was conducted by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC). The Commission initially made a recommendation of fifteen names against the fifteen vacancies, subsequently the Commission was asked to make recommendation for another vacancy and the name of the petitioner was recommended against sixteenth vacancy. The petitioner has disputed the claim of the respondents as regards the number of vacancies by stating that there were 18 vacancies and due to some mistake, only 15 were defined. The respondents, on the other hand, submits that originally there were 15 vacancies and while the selection was...
North East Gases Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. The action of the State in adding the rent earned by the petitioner Company on account of delayed return of gas cylinders, to its taxable turnover, has been called into question by means of the present writ application. The aforesaid challenge arises in the following facts and circumstances.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Industrial Oxygen, Nitrogen and dissolved Acetylene Gases. The aforesaid items are manufactured and supplied by the petitioner Company in cylinders and the same are reached to the eventual consumers through a net work of authorized dealers. The terms and conditions on which supplies are made to the authorized dealers, are embodied in the form of written agreements, the standard from of which has been enclosed to the writ petition. As the question arising for determination in the present case would call for a close scrutiny of the aforesaid terms and conditions under which the...
Aklu Mia Laskar Vs. Branch Manager, Sbi
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Amitava Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the Respondent/Opp. party.By this application under Section 115 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the Code, petitioner has challenged the order dated 7,11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1 Silchar in Title Execution Case NO. 8 of 1996, directing publication of sale proclamation for putting on auction sale, the vehicle purchased by the petitioner with loan from the Opp. Party. The petitioner incidentally has also challenged the sale proclamation that was published pursuant to the said order of the court.The short facts are that the petitioner, after taking a loan of Rs. 1,65,000 from the opposite party, purchased a Truck under registration No. ASC 8018. Having failed to repay the loan, he was in default. A suit was filed by the Opp. Party Bank for realisation of the dues and the same was decreed for Rs. 4,37,000 The execution case being Title...
Renu Talukdar Vs. Kanaklata Kalita and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Amitava Roy, J. 1. Head Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also-heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned counsel Opp. Parties/plaintiffs.2. The order under challenge in the instant Civil Revision petition is one setting aside the order dated 14-10-1993 dismissing the Title suit No. 112/1992 for default and consequently restoring it to file. The suit was brought by the Opp. Parties against the petitioner which was dismissed for default on 14.10.1993 as the Opp. Parties/plaintiffs failed to take steps. An application was thereafter filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the dismissal. The ground shown for default on 14.10.1993 was that respondent plaintiff was suffering from old age ailments and O.P. No. 2 being her daughter was attending to her. They contended that the Puja vacation ensued from the next day and they could come to learn about the dismissal only on 15.11.1993. According to them, the application was delayed by one day for which a prayer for condonatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »