Guwahati Court March 2004 Judgments

Shri M. Thaimon Singh S/O (L) M. Radheshyam Singh and ors. Vs. Shri So ...

Court: Guwahati

P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. As common questions of facts and laws are involved in theseappeals they are heard and decided by a common judgment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.The Principal Respondents herein have challenged the seniority listdated 31.1.2000 of the Assistant Engineers in the Public WorksDepartment, Government of Manipur. The Principal Respondents were promotess from the post of Sectional Officers Grade-I to the post ofAssistant Engineers on adhoc basis on different dates from the year 1976to 1981, whereas the appellants were direct recruitees to the posts ofAssistant Engineers, they being appointed on different dates in the year1980 and 1986. We are not going to the details of the appointment of thepromotee officers or the direct recruitees, because of the fact that in viewof the judgments passed by the High Court in different cases the PrincipalRespondents/promotee Officers were directed to be regularised in theirservices on the posts of Assi...

Nakuleswar Paul Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2005Gau54; (2004)3GLR461

1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the id. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 1, Agartala in T.S. No. 93 of 2003. By the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to file the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code was rejected.2. It is the case of the petitioner that Title Suit No. 93 of 2003 was filed by him challenging the placement of the officers in the grade of Senior Forest Rangers. He also filed a separate application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code for permission to sue in a representative capacity for and on behalf of others who have the same interest in the suit. By the impugned order, the Ld. Civil Judge rejected the application on the following grounds : - (1) no separate application was filed by the petitioner; (2) the officials who were sought to be represented by the petitioner did not have the same inte...

State of Manipur Represented by Under Secretary (Works) and the Under ...

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. As common questions of facts and laws are involved in theseappeals they are heard and decided by a common judgment.2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.The Principal Respondents herein have challenged the seniority listdated 31.1.2000 of the Assistant Engineers in the Public WorksDepartment, Government of Manipur. The Principal Respondents were promotess from the post of Sectional Officers Grade-I to the post ofAssistant Engineers on adhoc basis on different dates from the year 1976to 1981, whereas the appellants were direct recruitees to the posts ofAssistant Engineers, they being appointed on different dates in the year1980 and 1986. We are not going to the details of the appointment of thepromotee officers or the direct recruitees, because of the fact that in viewof the judgments passed by the High Court in different cases the PrincipalRespondents/promotee Officers were directed to be regularised in theirservices on the posts of Assistant E...

V.N. Enterprise and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D. Biswas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated . 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwhati dismissing the Money Suit No 131 of 1997.2. The aforesaid Money Suit was instituted by the appellant for realization of Rs. 31,129.92 along with interest of Rs. 43,325.68 at the rate of 18 per cent per annum being the cost of the materials supplied by them to the respondents during the year 1988 and onwards. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of Karbi Anglong District Council.3. The appellant is a proprietorial firm engaged in the business of supply of various equipments. It supplied various items as per order issued by the Executive Engineer (Defendant No. 7). Besides, the Executive Engineer also deputed his employees to collect spare parts from time to time to take delivery of spare parts by signing on the delivery challan without formal orders...

Jogendra Chandra Shill Vs. Anukul Chandra Shill and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khowai, West Tripura rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for rejecting the report of the Survey Commissioner and for appointing another Survey Commissioner for local inspection of the suit land.2. The material facts of the case may be briefly stated. The petitioner-plaintiff claims that he is the owner in possession of the land measuring 0'03 acre under Plot No. 2924 in Khatian No. 69 of Mouja-Madhya Kalyanpur. He also claims that he is the owner of the land measuring 0'01 acre under Dag No. 2927 in Khatian No. 1/119 of Mouja-Madhya Kalyanpur. It is asserted by the petitioner that when the respondents dispossessed him of a portion of the aforesaid lands measuring 33 feet in length and 6 feet in width, i.e., 198 sq. feet, he instituted a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific R...

Shri M. Thaimon Singh S/O (L) M. Radheshyam Singh and ors. Vs. Shri L. ...

Court: Guwahati

P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. As common questions of facts and laws are involved in theseappeals they are heard and decided by a common judgment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.The Principal Respondents herein have challenged the seniority listdated 31.1.2000 of the Assistant Engineers in the Public WorksDepartment, Government of Manipur. The Principal Respondents were promotess from the post of Sectional Officers Grade-I to the post ofAssistant Engineers on adhoc basis on different dates from the year 1976to 1981, whereas the appellants were direct recruitees to the posts ofAssistant Engineers, they being appointed on different dates in the year1980 and 1986. We are not going to the details of the appointment of thepromotee officers or the direct recruitees, because of the fact that in viewof the judgments passed by the High Court in different cases the PrincipalRespondents / promotee Officers were directed to be regularised in theirservices on the posts of As...

Sri Niranjan Das Son of Late Jitu Ram Das Vs. Sri Dipak Das Son of Sri ...

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mrs. Sumita Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.None appears for the respondent despite notice.2. By this criminal Revision, the petitioner has prayed for quashmentof the criminal proceeding initiated through the complaint case No. 400C/96 before the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ist ClassBarpeta as well as the order dated 22.2.96 by which the cognizance ofoffence under Sections 406/506 IPC has been taken against theaccused/petitioner.3. The impugned criminal proceeding has been launched on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent wherein it was narrated thatthough the vehicle (Bus) bearing registration AS-15-1155 was registeredin the name of his mother, due to sickness of his mother, the complainant/respondent along with his mother entered into an agreement of sale of the said vehicle with the petitioner and as per the said agreement, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- was paid to the complainants mother by the petitioner. But after that, ...

Sri Kh Temba Singh S/O Late Kh Toyaima Singh and ors. Vs. Sri I. Loken ...

Court: Guwahati

P.P. Naolekar, C.J.1. As common questions of facts and laws are involved in theseappeals they are heard and decided by a common judgment.2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.The Principal Respondents herein have challenged the seniority listdated 31.1.2000 of the Assistant Engineers in the Public WorksDepartment, Government of Manipur. The Principal Respondents were promotess from the post of Sectional Officers Grade-I to the post ofAssistant Engineers on adhoc basis on different dates from the year 1976to 1981, whereas the appellants were direct recruitees to the posts ofAssistant Engineers, they being appointed on different dates in the year1980 and 1986. We are not going to the details of the appointment of thepromotee officers or the direct recruitees, because of the fact that in viewof the judgments passed by the High Court in different cases the PrincipalRespondents / promotee Officers were directed to be regularised in theirservices on the posts of Assist...

Sri Kh. Temba Singh S/O Late Kh. Toyaima Singh and Shri N. Noren Singh ...

Court: Guwahati

P.P. Naolekar, C.J.1. As common questions of facts and laws are involved in theseappeals they are heard and decided by a common judgment.2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.The Principal Respondents herein have challenged the seniority listdated 31.1.2000 of the Assistant Engineers in the Public WorksDepartment, Government of Manipur. The Principal Respondents were promotess from the post of Sectional Officers Grade-I to the post ofAssistant Engineers on adhoc basis on different dates from the year 1976to 1981, whereas the appellants were direct recruitees to the posts ofAssistant Engineers, they being appointed on different dates in the year1980 and 1986. We are not going to the details of the appointment of thepromotee officers or the direct recruitees, because of the fact that in viewof the judgments passed by the High Court in different cases the PrincipalRespondents / promotee Officers were directed to be regularised in theirservices on the posts of Assist...

Pollution Control Board Vs. Jadav Shop Works and ors.

Court: Guwahati

P.P. Naolekar, C.J.1. By order/letter dated 16.2.1994 the industry of the respondents was closed down. The notices and the order of closure of the 'industry passed by the Pollution Control Board was challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The order dated 16.2.1994 has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed.2. The submission of Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Pollution Control Board has authority to issue any order or direction in exercise of the powers under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981 and as the respondents did not comply with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act the Board has rightly directed closure of the industry.3. A bare reading of the Section 31A makes it absolutely clear that the powers can be exercised by issuance of any direction, in the exercise of the Boards powers and performance of its functions under the Act, i.e., ...