Guwahati Court June 2005 Judgments

Raghu Forwarding Agency and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. The Appellants were Writ Petitioners. They had filed Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Civil Rule No. 815/97) praying for issuance of following directions to the Respondents (i) to refund punitive charges of Rs. 9,50,114.00 recovered from them for allegedly carrying goods in the Wagons beyond permissible capacity (ii) not to claim demurrage and wharfage charges from them and (Hi) to release the Wagons detained by the Respondents for the purpose of realizing the said amount.2. The Civil Rule was heard by a learned single Judge who by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1999, declined . the prayer for refund of the punitive charges amounting to Rs. 9,50,114.00 paid by the Appellants. In view of the interim directions, five Wagons of coal detained by the Respondent Railways were released on furnishing of Bank Guarantee by the Appellants. The ; learned single Judge subsequently held that the Respondents are not entitled to claim demurrage and wharfa...

Bamboo Bagicha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D Barua, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. A.C. Barbora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Md. Aslam, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6, Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel, for the respondent No. 7, Mr. K Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8, and Mr. U Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 9.2. Multiple litigations between the writ petitioner, on the one hand, and the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, on the other, have not been able to resolve the real issues between the parties and the present one is yet another round of litigation between the parties concerned.3. Because of the nature of controversy, which the present writ petition has raised and the nature of reliefs and counter-reliefs, which the parties have sought for, the entire writ petition, as prayed for by the learne...

Hafizun Begum Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Roy, C.J.1. The appellant, widow of Md. Nurul Haque, assails validity of the order dated 30.5.2005 passed in Petition No. 382 of 2005 filed by the brothers of late Md. Nurul Haque in M.A.C. Case No. 139 of 2001.2. Mrs. N. Saikia, learned Counsel for the appellant, has submitted as follows:(i) The brothers of the appellant's husband not being dependent on him had no right to file Petition No. 382 ot'2005, which has been illegally allowed.(ii) To support this submission, she relied on a Division Bench judgment of our High Court in Muhini Thakuria v. Dhiraj Kalita .(iii) The aforementioned petition has been wrongly entertained after disposal of the M.A.C. Case No. 139 of 2001 on 13.6.2003, which should have been dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability.3. In the instant case, we find that the brothers of the deceased were made parties as claimant vide order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Claims Tribunal. This order is binding on the appellant.4. Section 166(1)(c) of the M...

Hafizun Begum Vs. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Roy, C.J.1. The appellant, widow of Md. Nurul Haque, assails validity of the order dated 30.5.2005 passed in Petition No. 382 of 2005 filed by the brothers of late Md. Nurul Haque in M.A.C. Case No. 139 of 2001.2. Mrs. N. Saikia, learned Counsel for the appellant, has submitted as follows:(i) The brothers of the appellant's husband not being dependent on him had no right to file Petition No. 382 of 2005, which has been illegally allowed.(ii) To support this submission, she relied on a Division Bench judgment of our High Court in Muhini Thakuria v. Dhiraj Kalita 1994 ACJ 944 (Gauhati).(iii) The aforementioned petition has been wrongly entertained after disposal of the M.A.C. Case No. 139 of 2001 on 13.6.2003, which should have been dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability.3. In the instant case, we find that the brothers of the deceased were made parties as claimant vide order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Claims Tribunal. This order is binding on the appellant.4. Secti...

H. Biakchhunga Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Katakey, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an Inspector of . Statistics in the Government of Mizoram, challenging the final inter-se seniority list dated 10.2.1998 and for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list by placing the petitioner above private respondent Nos. 4 to 7.2. The fact in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1973 as Field Assistant the Economics and Statistics Department of Govt. of Mizoram. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Computer on 10.5.1978 and to the post' of Junior Statistician, vide order dated on the basis of the recommendation Promotion Committee (D.P.C) held on 29.2.1984. On the basis of another selection conducted by the selection' committee in its meeting dated direct recruitment to recommendation were made and in pursuant the order of appointment dated 4.7.1985 was issued appointing the private respondents along with thirteen others to the post of Junior Statistician a...

Hav. Rohmingliana and ors. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Katakey, J.1. By these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the reinstatement of the private respondents in Mizoram Police Service after acceptance of their resignations from service. As the point involved in both the cases is same, and identical, both were heard together as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties and taken up for disposal by a common judgment.2. In W.P.(C) 113/03, the petitioners who are serving as Havildars in Mizoram Police have challenged the order of re-instatement dated 10.2.2003 passed by the Director General of Police, Mizoram reinstating the respondent No. 5 in service as Sub-Inspector of Police, who was discharged from service with effect from 6.1.1988 vide order dated 8.1.1988 on the basis of the resignation submitted by him on 5.1.1988.3. In W.P(C) 114/03 the petitioners who are serving as Naik in Mizoram Police has challenged the order dated 13.2.2003 passed by the Director of Police Mizoram re-instating the respondent No. 5 as Hayild...

Md. Sahid Ali and ors. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T. Vaiphei, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.2002 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tripura North, Kailashahar cancelling the offer of appointment issued in favour of the four petitioners for the post of constable under the Tripura Police Department and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them to the said posts.2. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. To appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition, a brief narration of the facts as gathered (from the pleadings of the parties, may be noticed at the very outset. The Government of Tripura constituted a Recruitment Board for filling up the vacant, posts of male constable and woman constable under the Tripura Police Department. Towards this end, an advertisement was published in the local papers (Annexure B) inviting eligible candidates for filling up the following vacancies for the posts of male constable, and female constables.Name of post...

Col. Jagmohan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Manipur and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D. Biswas, J.1.Writ Petition (C) No. 5817 of 2004 and Writ Petition (C) No. 6187 of 2004 being relatable to the same issue are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Writ Petition (C) No. 5817 of 2004 has been filed by Col. Jagmohan Singh, Commandant of 17th Assam Rifles challenging the competence of the State of Manipur to appoint a Commission of Inquiry by the Notification No. 8/1(1)/2004/H(Pt-2) D/-12th July, 2004 with prayer for other consequential reliefs. Writ Petition (C) No. 6187 of 2004 has been filed by JC-172262F Nb Digambar Dutta of 17th Battalion Assam Rifles and three others also challenging the aforesaid notification.3. In Writ Petition (C) No. 5817 of 2004, an order was passed on 19-8-2004 observing that it would be open for the Commission to examine the petitioners on commission in camera. In Writ Petition (C) No. 6187 of 2004, while issuing Rule by the order dated 28-8-2004, a learned Single Judge of this Court provided that the Commission ma...

Neepco Tribal Employees' Welfare Association, Vs. Union of India (UOi) ...

Court: Guwahati

Amitava Roy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raise a common question pertaining to the true purport of Section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Contending that the benefit of exemption thereunder being extendable to the petitioners, consequential reliefs by way of annulment of the impugned orders and the related assessment proceedings have been prayed for.2. By separate orders passed at the time of issuance of the rule, this court had granted interim protection staying the realisation of the tax assessed denying the exemption.3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Department and Mr. V.K. Jindal, senior advocate for the North Eastern Electrical Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'NEEPCO').4. A brief narration of the individual facts is advisable.5. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 200 (SH)/2001 is a registered association comprised of the members of the Sc...

Neepco Tribal Employees' Welfare Association, Vs. Union of India (UOi) ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Gau)133,[2007]290ITR481(Gauhati)

Amitava Roy, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raise a common question pertaining to the true purport of Section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Contending that the benefit of exemption thereunder being extendable to the petitioners, consequential reliefs by way of annulment of the impugned orders and the related assessment proceedings have been prayed for.2. By separate orders passed at the time of issuance of the rule, this court had granted interim protection staying the realisation of the tax assessed denying the exemption.3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Department and Mr. V.K. Jindal, senior advocate for the North Eastern Electrical Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'NEEPCO').4. A brief narration of the individual facts is advisable.5. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 200 (SH)/2001 is a registered association comprised of the members of the Sch...