Guwahati Court February 2004 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.
islam UddIn Barbhuiya Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents and also heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.2. This revision has been carried from the judgment and order dated 11-12-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 18/ 1998 by which the accused/respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 364/302/34 IPC.3. The facts in a short compass as projected by the prosecution may be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this revision. One Islam Uddin Barbhuiyan, PW.1, lodged an ejahar at Katigorah Police Station alleging that his brother, Jamiruddin who was running a motor workshop at Panchgram used to go to his workshop daily from his village residence at Ujangram and on 29-9-1992, as usual, went to his workshop at Panchgram but did not return in the evening to his house.4. Fojiruddin, PW. 4, the younger brother of the deceased w...
Makhan Chandra Deb Vs. Puran Baraik and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision has arisen out of the order, dated 3.8.1999, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 2, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Title Suit No. 73/1996, whereby the learned Court below rejected the plaintifif- petitioner's prayer for allowing him to prove the documents related to Miscellaneous case No. 292/1989, which was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the plaintiff- petitioner was not competent to prove the documents, in question, lying in the record of the said proceeding inasmuch as it is only an official witness, who can prove a record and/or the contents of a document lying in such a record. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-petitioner has, now, impugned the order, dated 3.8.1999, aforementioned in this revision.2. Heard Mr. TC Khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the opposite party.3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Khetri contends that by not allowing the plaintiff-petitioner's...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sukraj Debbarama
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The respondent herein, while working as a L/NK in the Border Security Force, faced a trial by Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the SSFC') on two charges and was found guilty of one of those two charges framed against him and the charges of which he was so found guilt is reproduced hereinbelow :-CHARGE-II ASSAULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERBSF ACTU/s 20(a) 'In that he, at Naka No. 81 of BOP Murad, on intervening night of 5/6.5.2000 AT 0300 HRS DURING Naka checking assaulted No. 669110731 Sub-B.S.Rama'1. Following the above finding, the SSFC sentenced the respondent herein to dismissal from service. The sentence was promulgated on 15.5.2000. In terms of the provisions of Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter abbreviated as the BSF Act, 1968), the petitioner-respondent made a representation against the said finding and sentence, but the same was turned down by the order, dated 20.7.2000. The petitioner-respondent, then, cha...
State of Tripura and ors. Vs. Chandan @ Chandanmoy Dasgupta and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 15.11.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 546/ 2001.2. Heard Mr. T.K. Roy, learned Advocate General, Tripura, assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We also have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ appeal may be briefly stated. The respondents were originally employed as Industrial workers under the Industries Department. They had obtained completed vocational training for 2 years and obtained National Certificate from the Industrial Training Institute before entering into the said employment and each of them possessed the minimum qualification of Class VIII. According to the respondents, they were allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 170-210/- per mensem, while workers having the same qualificat...
Rakhal Ch. Dey and ors. Vs. Dr. Surendra Nath Sarma and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Alleging violation of the order dated 7.4.1999 passed in C.R No. 6616/1998 the contempt application has been filed. The said order dated 7.4.1999 is quoted below :'Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the Respondents Perused the writ petition and the document annexed, specially Annexure 14, a certificate issued by the Depot-in-charge, FCI Gossaigaon certifying that the petitioners have been working since 22.5.1986 as ancillary labours in the godown of FCI, at Gossaigaon and even now working as such. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that although the writ petitioners are working as ancillary labourers, their wages have not been paid. In view of the submission as above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall examine the claim of the writ petitioners and make payment of the arrears of wages as payable to them in accordance with law within a period of one month from the d...
Nurul Miah and ors. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 4.8.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Sessions Trial No. 18(ST/U) of 1998, convicting the accused-appellant No. 1, namely, Nurul Miah, under Section 396 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and also convicting the remaining accused-appellants under Section 396 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year, the present appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial against the accused-appellants, may, in brief, be stated as follows :-On 29.11.1995 at about 10.45 p.m., while the complainant, Khadeja Bibi, her husband, Abdul Miah Choudhury and their daughter, Tanu Begum, were...
Lutfar Ramman and ors. Vs. Abdul Jalil and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 58/89 and the said suit was dismissed by the trial court, whereupon the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 29/96 before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) but no relief was granted and hence the present appeal. Title Suit No. 58/89 was in respect of 3 bighas of land out of 7 bighas 1, kathas 13, lechas of land situated at village Jahorpum under Ghilazari mouza and covered by Dag No. 595 and KP patta No. 142 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). 2. The case of the plaintiff is that one Md. Manir Uddin Munsi was the original owner of the land, and sold 5 bighas of land to one Bhagawan Das and the said Bhagawan Das sold the suit land measuring 3 bighas to the father of the plaintiff namely Daulat Khan by registered sale deed No. 7286 of 1978. The plaintiffs obtained mutation over the suit land but subsequently it was cancelled. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit for declaration of right, title and co...
Tripura State Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Shambhu Paul and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed, on 4-9-2003, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, in Money Suit No. 25 of 2002, refusing to call, on the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner, the records from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, relating to GR Case No. 85 of 2001.2. While calling for the records aforementioned, the learned Court below observed and directed as follows :'Heard both sides and considered. It appears that a detail order was passed on the prayer of the plaintiff to call for the record from the learned CJM/JM, 1st Class, Agartala, on the prayer, on 13-3-2003 and 4-7-2003 and in that order the plaintiff was given a chance to produce the admissible evidence of documents, namely, primary evidence or giving explanation, the secondary evidence of the primary documents as per the provisions of law. But the plaintiff are insisting the same prayer before the Court for months t...
Pramod Barmah and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition relates back to an earlier writ petition, which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 1889/94. By the said writ petition the Muster Roll labourers of the Veterinary Department, Government of Assam had approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction through their Union. By the said writ petition a prayer was made for regularisation of the services of the Muster Roll workers and not to give effect to the directives of the Department by which the decision was communicated not to engage any Muster Roll workers except for the purpose of development of the livestock and poultry firms with effect from 19.09.94. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following observations and directions :'In making absorption the authority should bear in mind that it is well settled law that the Government must behave like a model employer. The Government is not expected to exploit its employees nor it is expected that the Government should adopt a ...
Guru Prashad Chakraborty Vs. Tripura University and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The judgment and order dated 30.5.1997, passed in Civil Rule Nos. 2/1989 and 26/1989, dismissing the two writ petitions is under challenge in the present appeal.2. In a narrow compass, the facts, which are material for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal may be stated as follows:-The respondent No. 1, namely, Tripura University, published an advertisement on 30.8.1988, inviting, inter alia, application for appointment to the post of Deputy Librarian in the said University. Amongst others, the appellant, the respondent No. 4 and one Arabinda Chakravorty applied for appointment to the said post of Deputy Librarian. The Selection Board, eventually, selected the respondent No. 4 for appointment to the said post. Aggrieved by this appointment, the appellant and the said Arabinda Chakravorty instituted two writ petitions aforementioned. By the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1997, both the writ petitions were, as indicated hereinbefore, dismissed the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »