Guwahati Court October 2006 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.
Xavier P. Mao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the appointment of the respondent No. 7 as Professor of Culture in the Department of Philosophy under the North Eastern Hill University. At the very outset, it may be noted that the copy of the impugned letter is not even annexed to this writ petition. It is contended by Mr. S. Sen, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-University that the petitioner is not even a contender for the post in question and, as such, he has no locus standi to file this writ petition, in support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of the Apex Court Ghulam Quadir v. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC and Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana : [1977]2SCR361 . The contentions of Mr. P. Dey, the learned Counsel for the private respondent are also duly noted which are in pari materia with those of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University. On the other hand, Mr. K. Paul, the learned Counsel for the peti...
Ved Mitra Verma Vs. Dharma Deo Verma and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This Revision petition, wrongly registered as a writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in FAO No. 19(T) 2004 upholding the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Title Suit No. 25(T) 1992 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for impleading him as one of the defendants in the suit.2. I have heard Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, I have also heard Mrs. R D.B. Baruah, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.The facts, which are not in dispute for disposal of this revision petition, are that the petitioner, claiming himself to be the co-owner of the suit property situated at Nongthymmai, by virtue of inheritance from his father the late Satyanand Verma, filed an application under ...
Siya Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the proceeding of the Summary Security Force Court held against the petitioner under Section 46 and 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (the Act for short) and the penalty/sentence contained in the order dated 10.8.2001 of reduction in rank to the post of Constable from Havildar passed in connection therewith.2. To appreciate the controversy, a brief narration of the facts as projected in the writ petition is called for. The petitioner at the relevant time was a Havildar in the Border Security Force ('BSF' for short) attached to 55th Battallion. On 9.1.97, while the petitioner was driving a Tata 407 mini truck bearing registration No. DL-1L 1089 in a convoy of five vehicles all belonging to the BSF under the command of the Assistant Commandant Shri R.C. Pant, his vehicle turned turtle while negotiating a 'U' curve at a place between Sinam and Border outpost Lamkankhonou in Manipur. In the said accident, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›