Guwahati Court October 2006 Judgments
State of Tripura Vs. Pannalal Ghosh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
A B. Pal, J.1. This writ appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 16.03.01 in W.P.(C) No. 394 of 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By that judgment the writ petition by the respondents herein was allowed directing the State respondent to appoint an Arbitrator to decide the compensation admissible for the acquisition of lands as required by Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950 (for short, the Security Act) as extended to the State of Tripura. Aggrieved, the State respondent has preferred the present appeal.2. The short fact leading to the writ proceeding is as under:(i) On 04.05.1951, the State Government by an order under Section 29 of the Security Act requisitioned 80 acres of land appertaining to the Taluk (kharija) of one Akhil Chandra Ghosh within mouja Ratiabari. The nature of the lands were described as fallow and jungle. It was provided in the said order that the owners and occupiers of the lands requisitioned may...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tripura and ors. Vs. Dwijendra Home Roy and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. This writ appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 08.08.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 491 of 1999. By that judgment the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed with a direction that the writ petitioner No. 1, an Assistant Engineer, would get the pay scale of Rs. 10,650-15,850/- for the period from 01.01.1999 to 30.09.1999 in accordance with the proviso (ix) under Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revision Pay) Rules, 1999 (for short 'ROP, 1999').2. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State appellants and Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The writ petition was filed by Dwijendra Home Roy and All Tripura Diploma Engineers' Association claiming benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (for short 'CAS') provided in Rule 10 o the ROP, 1999 for all the diploma ...
Tag this Judgment!Shillong Municipal Board Vs. Upstar Lyngdoh
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. With the consent of both the parties, these revision petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage.2. The Revision Petition No. 16(SH) 2006 is directed against the order dated 01.08.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Civil Misc. Application No. 29(T) 2006 arising out of Revision Petition No. 1(T) 2006. While the Revision Petition No. 17(SH) 2006 is directed against the order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4(T) 2006 arising out of FAO No. 2006, as the facts involved in the revision petitions are inter connected, for the sake of convenience, it will suffice if the facts of Civil Revision Petition 16(SH) 2006 are noticed at the outset.3. The Shillong Municipal Board, which is the petitioner, by the notice dated 12.08.2003 had invited tenders from interested parties to submit their bids for the l...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal Ghosh and ors. Vs. Jogesh Chandra Paul and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. In all the above civil revision petitions, the same question in similar factual premises having arisen, I propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.2. The background facts in brief are as follows:One Akhil Chandra Ghosh, the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners instituted several suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein which were decreed on contest or ex parte in his favour. The said suits were decreed on different dates between 1961 to 1966. No execution proceeding was, however, instituted within the prescribed period of limitation either by Akhil Chandra Ghosh or after his demise, his legal heirs. The execution proceedings were, however, instituted in 1989 after a period of more than 23 years by the legal heirs of Akhil Chandra Ghosh with a prayer for extending the period of limitation under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned executing court ref...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Debnath Vs. Bhadrabati Roy and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. This Second Appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 7.4.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 51/1997. By that judgment the findings of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 05/1992 leading to dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-appellant herein, with cost to the defendant-respondents herein, was affirmed. This is the Second Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and the first appellate court.2. The background fact in brief originates from the claim of the plaintiff-appellant that by virtue of his long and adverse possession denying title of the defendant-respondents and for that matter anybody else he acquired title over the suit land measuring 9 gandas and 18 dhoors in Mouja Barjala appertaining to Khatian No. 920 of C.S. Plot No. 4541. It is the definite case of the appellant that after his migration from East Pakistan in...
Tag this Judgment!Khuda Wood Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the appellant and also Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.This income-tax appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ignoring the relevant materials, namely, auditor's letter dated June 5, 1991, before it was justified and did not err in holding that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the audit report by the assessee and this pass a perverse order?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal interpreted the word 'reasonable cause' appearing in Section 273B under the Act contrary to the principle of interpretation of such words as has been laid down by the apex court in Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood reported in : AIR1992SC1540 in Sarpanch Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi reported in : (1967)IILLJ870SC and other various decisions?2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Paritosh Roy and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. This second appeal has arisen from the common judgment dated 8.6.2001 by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 69 of 1997 and Title Appeal No. 21 of 1998. By a reverse finding, the Title Appeal No. 69 of 1997 of the plaintiff was allowed declaring his right, title and interest in the suit land and decreeing recovery of khas possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants therein. The Title Appeal No. 21 of 1998 of the defendant was dismissed. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.2. The plaintiff-respondent Santosh Kumar Roy is the full- blood brother of Paritosh Roy, Ashutosh Roy, Priyatosh Roy and Smt. Monorama Roy, first, second, third and fifth appellant herein. He is the eldest son of Smt. Kamala Roy, the fourth appellant herein. When they were in a joint mess at Agartala, Santosh, the plaintiff-respondent, was posted at Melaghar in 1966 in connection with his service under the State Government while the a...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri Shankar Jalan and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Whether an admission made by a defendant, in his written statement, can be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment? Is there, in the matter of permitting such amendment of a written statement, any difference between an 'express admission' and an 'implied admission'? Can a lawyer's incorrect instructions, omission or failure leading to the making of an implied or express admission, in a written statement, be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment and if not, what is the remedy for a defendant, whose written statement contains, on account of incorrect instructions, failure or omission of his counsel, an admission, either express or implied? Is there any remedy available at all to a defendant if an admission, implied or express is made by him in a written statement, following incorrect instructions, omissions or failure on the part of his counsel and if so, what is the remedy? Should this Court interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bhagawan Oil and Flour Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Whether oil cake is a specie of finished goods within the meaning of the said expression as appearing in the Transport Subsidy Scheme of 1971, so as to entitle the appellant-writ petitioner to grant of subsidy under the scheme, is the moot question that arises for consideration in the present appeal.2. The appellant-writ petitioner-firm is a small scale industrial unit registered with the competent authority of the State Government. In terms of the registration certificate granted to the appellant-firm, oil cake is one of the items of manufacture by the appellant unit. The pleaded case of the appellant is that the process of manufacture of oil cake consists of crushing of oil seeds as a result of which mustard oil is produced and the residue or the remainder constitutes a distinct and specified commodity which is known in the market as oil cake. According to the appellant-firm, oil cake is known and understood in trade and commercial circles as a distinct and defin...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Singh Vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the validity of the Notification dated 31.03.2004 issued by the respondent No. 2, relaxing the qualifying service of two years as Superintending Engineer (Civil) for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Civil) and the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Civil).2. The material facts for disposal of this writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Meghalaya State Electricity Board on 21.06.1976 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.04.1985 and was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer under the same Board on 09.07.1984. The respondent No. 3 on the other hand, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 01.06.1996. In the final inter-se seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) which was published on 08.11.89, the petitioner was placed a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »