Guwahati Court January 2005 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.
Gopinath Ghosh Vs. Jasuda Debnath and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.V. Act') has arisen out of the judgment and award, dated 24.11.1998, passed, in T.S. (MAC) No. 264/94, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala.2. The case of the claimant, as unfolded before the learned Tribunal, may, in brief, be stated as follows:On 26.9.1994, when the claimant was travelling by vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-2505, which was being driven at high speed, the same collided against another vehicle bearing registration No. TRS-668, which was coming driven at high speed from the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, the claimant sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body, he was shifted to G.B. Hospital and remained under treatment there till 30.10.1994. Even after discharge from the G.B. Hospital, the claimant has remained under treatment, at Kolkata as well as at Agartala, for injuries sust...
Hem Kanta Bora Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
H.N. Sarma, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15(3)/95 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 7-6-95 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhimpur in C. R. Case No. 198/94 convicting the accused petitioner under Sections 447/34, IPC and sentencing to any fine of Rs. 400/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each.2. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. F. U. Laskar, learned P.P. appears for the State respondent.3. Although, the case arises out of a complaint and in fact, the complainant was impleaded as respondent in the above-noted criminal appeal No. 15(3)/93, but has not been impleaded as party respondent in the instant petition.4. The prosecution case in brief, inter alia, is that a decree in favour of the complainant was passed in Title Suit No. 46/89 fo...
Tilak Barman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Amitava Roy, J.1. The preventive detention of the petitioner following the order dated 17.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereafter referred to as the Act) is in challenge in the instant proceeding.2. We have heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Choudhury, Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State respondents and Mr. N. Bora, Additional CGSC for the Union of India.3. The bare facts indispensibly necessary for disposing of the petition have to be stated. The petitioner who was on 12.6.2004 arrested in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 166/2004 and lodged in the Central Jail, Guwahati, was served with an order of detention dated 17.7.2004 under the Act as aforementioned. The grounds of detention were also served on the same date, i.e., 17.7.2004. He thereafter submitted a representation against his detention on 12.8.2004. His representation was addressed to t...
Smt. Chhanda Debbarma Vs. Keshab Banik
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel along with Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the accused-peti-tioner and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent.This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in C.R. No. 2922 of 2003 on 29-10-2004 where by learned trial Court had allowed the prosecution prayer to re-examine the claimant to prove two documents.2. The brief facts, according to the accused-petitioner are that the complainant respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and a case was registered as C. R. No. 2922 of 2003 wherein learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued notice upon the accused-petitioner to appear before the Court on 27-9-2003, pursuant to which, the ...
Bhupendra Nath Deka Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned Standing counsel. Education Department.2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is in respect of the order dated 12.8.1999 by which the order appointing the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Gopalthan Polytechnical Institution 23.10.1998 was cancelled. Such cancellation of the order of appointment of the petitioner was stated to be in reference to the earlier communication dated 5.5.1999.3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner in response to an advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teacher in the provincialised High/High Madrassa/Higher Secondary Schools in Assam offered his candidature for one such posts. It is the further case of the petitioner that in acceptance of the offer so made, he was invited for selection conducted by the District Level Selection Board, which was constituted for conducti...
Debeswar Barah Vs. Ghogi Saikia and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, Golaghat in Title Suit No. 14/96. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the suit filed by plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has instituted the present proceedings in revision.2. I have heard Mr. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.3. A perusal of the judgment under challenge in the present proceeding would go to show that the plaintiff's suit for possession was dismissed by the learned trial Court by holding the claimed possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land not to be proved and established by the materials on record. Though this Court, while exercising the revisional power under Section 115 of the C...
intaz Ali Choudhury Vs. Asia Mia Coudhury and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal, dated 21.4.1997 passed in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1995.2. The basic facts that would be necessary for a proper appreciation of the question(s) of law arising in the present second appeal may be noticed hereunder.The appellant, as the plaintiff, instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 55 of 1992 in the Court of the Learned Munsiff No. 2, Silchar (now Civil Judge Junior Division No. 2). According to the plaintiff, the suit land measuring 15 kathas 11 chattaks covered by different dags of separate R.S. Pattas situated at village Ambikapur Part X, Ph. Barakpar, District Cachar was gifted to him by one Sona Bibi by executing a deed of gift dated 1.11.1981. According to the plaintiff, the suit land and some other lands fell to the share of his donor, Sona Bibi, on the basis of a family partition effected by and between the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants No. 1 to 23 by means of writte...
Mohan Chandra Deka Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 17-2-1997, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1996, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 4-10-1996, passed, in CR Case No. 999/93, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows : -On 16-07-1993, on receipt of information, Sri RP Barua, Executive Magistrate, Guwahati, requisitioned the service of Sri Khagendra Nath Goswami, Food Inspector, whereupon the said Food Inspector (PW1), accompanied the said Executive Magistrate, visited the premised of M/s Mausumi Enterprise, situ...
Haladhar Nayak and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
M.B.K. Singh, J.1. This Revision has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed on 15.6.1996 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1995 allowing partly the appeal, which had been filed against the judgment dated 8.9.95 of the learned Addl. C.J.M. Jorhat. The impugned judgment upheld the convictions and sentences made against the present revisionists by the learned C.J.M. Jorhat for the commission of offences under Section 448/325/34 IPC. Further, the impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the present revisionist, Ruhit Nayak, for the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. But, convictions and sentences against the remaining revisionists in respect of the said offence under Section 323 read with section 34 IPC were set aside.2. The revisionists are present by their counsel, Mr. PC Gayan, advocate. None appears ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mustt. Rejina Begum and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
I.A. Ansari, J.1. It is not uncommon for the Courts to be invited to decide the contours of its own powers under a given provisions of law - constitutional or statutory. The present set of Writ Petitions as well as Civil Revision Petitions too call for determination of the scope of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 and power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the one hand, and the ambit of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the other.2. Whether an insurer, under any circumstance, can impugn an award rendered by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in an application under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India and whether this constitutional remedy is completely barred so far as an insurer is concerned are the principal questions, which the present set of writ petitions have raised? What has also been raised is the question as to whether an insurer can invoke revisional jurisdiction...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »