Guwahati Court May 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.
MalIn Kanta Paul Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-21-2004
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.8.2002, passed in WP(C) No. 62/2000, the writ petition has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has, now, preferred the present appeal.2. Can the terms and conditions of the service of a Government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? If so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers Will the power to amend the conditions of service rertospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to the Government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced Whether the writ of mandamus, issued in a given case, can be superseded by the Government and if so, how and what extent What was the real question, which the WP(C) No. 62/2000, had raised for determin...
Chandan Gogoi Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-2004
P.G. Acarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. M. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. C. Gayan, learned Public Prosecutor.2. The appellant Sri Chandan Gogoi along with two others namely; Rupjyoti Boragohain and Gunapratim Gogoi was tried by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case 86(NL)/98 for commission of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the accused Rupjyoti Boragohain was acquitted whereas accused Gunapratim Gogoi was convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC. The said Gunapratim Gogoi is not before us. The present appellant Chandan Gogol was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and hence the present appeal.3. The prosecution version of the occurrence is that on the evening 19.9.96 the members of the 'Ghillamara Anchalik Chatra Sanstha organised a feast at the PWD Inspection Bungalow situated at Ghillamara Choukham Ghat gaon. While the members were...
Tripura Bar Association Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-2004
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This writ petition filed by the Tripura Bar Association is directed against the Notification No. F.5(7)-REV/87 dated 5.2.2002 issued by the Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura by which the Advocates even if they enroll themselves as a Member of the Bar Council, are not allowed to practice deed writing without obtaining deed writing licence from the competent authority. The Bar Association also challenges the vires of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules, 1989 which are framed Under Section 69(bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.2. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -Bar Association. I have also heard Mr. B.R. Bhattachajree learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deb and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. At the very outset, Mr. B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that ...
Fortune Towers India (P) Ltd. Vs. Gauhati Municipal Corporation and or ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-2004
Amitava Roy, J.1. The challenge in the instant proceedings is directed against the demolition drive of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') involving the 5th and 6th floors of the petitioner's building/apartment at Tokobari Satra, A.T. Road, Guwahati and the inaction of the authorities thereof, to act in terms of the directions of the Standing Appellate Committee of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Committee') as contained in its judgment and order dated 05.05.2000 passed in Appeal case No. GCL/16/2000.2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 28.08.2003, in the interim, restrained the Corporation authorities from proceeding with the demolition exercise.3. I have heard M Dutta, Senior Advocate, assisted by MN. Srinivasan, Advocate for the petitioner and M Deka, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Corporation.4. The factual matrix in short, is that the petitioner is a Company with its registered office at T...
Birendra Kumar Borthakur and ors. Vs. Gauhati Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-2004
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. In this Writ Appeal, the validity of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants, has been put to challenge.2. The facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset:Both the writ petitioners and the respondents 4 to 9 joined service in the Gauhati Municipal Corporation at the entry level posts of Lower Division Assistant/Typist. According to the appellants, on the basis of their respective dates of joining in the initial posts of Lower Division Assistant/Typist, the writ petitioners have a longer length of service and therefore are senior to the respondents 4 to 9. By an order dated 9.7.1985, both the appellants and the respondents were promoted to the next higher posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 670/- -1500/- P.M. The aforesaid promotion, on being approved by the Public Service Commission, by order dated 5.9.1991, the appellants as well as the respondents were confirmed in their...
Geeta Art Press Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-2004
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Geeta Art Press, is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and is engaged in the business of printing press and execution of works contract within the State of Assam. For the assessment year 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 the petitioner submitted his returns and assessments were accordingly made. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued and an order of reassessment was passed on April 13, 1999 under Section 18(1) of the Act. The petitioner-firm had purchased papers from the registered dealers for use in execution of works contract and the petitioner had used form A accordingly. These forms were collected from the department. Subsequently, the department came up with the plea that in view of the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993, the petitioner is not eligible/entitled to use form A for purchase of goods used for the purpose of exec...
Dharmpal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-2004
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The first writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2921/2004 was heard at length during motion hearing. Although the learned counsel for the parties primarily argued on the prayer for interim relief, but on being pointed out that nothing might survive for final adjudication once the interim matter was decided either way, having regard to the nature of relief sought for in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the parties agreed for final disposal of the case. Thus the matter was taken up for final decision at the motion hearing itself.2. The other three petitions being WP(C) Nos. 7075/2004, 7076/2004 and 7077/2004 were moved at a later date and the learned counsel for the parties submitted, rather agreed that the arguments made in the first petition would cover these cases and also agreed for final disposal at the motion stage itself along with the first writ petition.3. All the writ petitions raise common questions of law on similar set of facts with minor variations rel...
Parsuram Bhumiz Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-2004
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 CR. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, on 12-12-1997, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1997, whereby the accused-appellant, namely, Parasuram Bhumiz was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that on 06.05.1996 at about 5 PM, while the deceased Jagdish Uria was returning from the market and passing through the garden line, the accused-appellant, Parasuram Bhumiz, assaulted him with a naga dao. The deceased snatched away the dao and ran to his house to save his life. He narrated the matter to his wife and other witnesses, who arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the commotion. The injured was removed to the garden hospital and from there to Nakachari Public Health Centre and, thereafter, to Jorhat...
Hem Kanta Saikia and anr. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-18-2004
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Justification to place the petitioners under suspension in the above two writ petitions is the question raised in these writ petitions. Both the writ petitioners are bank employees. The Bank authority has placed them under suspension pertaining to the same incident. They have initiated the writ proceedings by filing two separate writ petitions raising common questions of fact and law. The writ petitions were heard analogously and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, they were taken up together for final disposal.2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1198/2004 at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Manager of Amguri Branch of United Bank of India. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1199/2004 was also posted in the same Branch as Manager. They have initiated the writ proceedings being apprehensive of placing them under suspension by the Bank authority relating to an incident which is common to both of them.3. Adverting to the facts of the case which are identical ...
Padumi Boro Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-17-2004
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Singh, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. and Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam representing the respective official respondents.2. The petitioner Smt. Padumi Boro, wife of Sri Dilip Boro, resident of village-Maidangpur under Rangapara Police Station in the district Of Sonitpur has filed this Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that on 24.5.2002 some jawans of Assam Rifles having its Camp near to the house of the petitioner's husband who has been serving as a Chowkidar in a local M.E./High School, while patrolling in the vicinity, went to their house and asked her husband Sri Dilip Boro to attend positively at Charduwar 5th Assam Rifle Headquarters as the high-ups of Assam Rifle wanted to have a talk with him to which he agreed to visit. Accordingly, on the next day i.e. on 25.5.02, the petitioner's husband came out with his by-cycle ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »