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.
Nanu Devi (Balmiki) Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Amitava Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Choudhury, SR. CGSC. 2. The short but substantive relief which the petitioner seeks in the writ petition is for regularisation of her services under the respondent-Corporation. According to her, she was appointed as a casual worker in the year 1986 at a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 90 to be calculated on daily wage basis. She has been serving since then on the said terms. According to her, she was transferred under the administrative control of the respondent No. 4 at Nagaon, Senchowa, F.S.D. after her appointment. But however no written order of appointment was offered to her. Her grievance is that persons similarly situated like her have been regularised in their service, by dint of their service for few years, but her case had not been considered. Her representations to the said effect have also fallen on deaf ears. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of an official communication date 3...
Shikhar Chand Falodia and anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar Sanganeria and Brother ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Amitava Roy, J. 1. Does a law of procedure mandate an inflexible rigidity in principle to refuse accommodation to substantive justice in all situations, is the question posed in the present petition. By the order impugned herein, the learned court below has permitted the respondents to file a fresh affidavit by way of evidence in, the suit pending before it. According to the petitioners on a strict interpretation of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 this is not permissible and therefore the said order is liable to be interferred with by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of the Code and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard Mr. H.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Dr. G. Lal, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The essential facts are not in dispute. The respondents herein had filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division No. 1 Guwahati praying for a decree int...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›