Guwahati Court November 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.
Giribala Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
B.S. Reddy, C.J.1. This is yet another case where an innocent poor man has been brutally killed at the hands of the security agencies in the name of counter insurgency operations.2. The widow of the deceased is before us in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ against respondents for payment of compensation. The case set up by her is a simple one.3. On 24th August, 1999 at about 5 A.M. the writ petitioner's husband Phanidhar Das aged about 55 years went to answer the calls of nature in the open area at a distance of few feet away from his residential house, then all of a sudden the Army personnel fired on him and as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death. The inquest report was prepared by Executive Magistrate, Mangaldoi, Darrang in the hospital and later on the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. D.N. Saikia of Mangaldoi Civil hospital. The postmortem report clearly reveals that the deceased...
Haren Sarma Vs. Smt. Renu Borthakur and ors. Etc.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Aggrieved by the decree of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 12/ 1992, dated 23-8-1995, by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat, reversing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 25/1992, decreeing the suit, the aggrieved defendant/ appellant has filed this second appeal.2. I have heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Battacharjee for the defendant/appellant and Mr. Rajiv Baruah, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondents.3. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 25/82 praying for a decree claiming preferential right to purchase a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas. 3 Kathas, 3 Lechas covered by Periodic Patta No. 22, Bhagatdheuni Gaon, Charaibari Mouza in the district of Jorhat. The plaintiff based his claim on the pleaded facts that the suit land originally belonged to their father late Korgeswar Borthakur who died intestate leaving both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and pro forma defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5...
Mkb (Asia) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. We have heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, senior advocate for the appellant and Mr. U. Bhuyan learned Counsel for the respondent Income-tax Department.2. The above four appeals have been heard analogously as the question of law raised is identical and they are disposed of by this common order.3. The appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of execution of works contract. Being the assessee under the Income tax Act 1961,for short the Act, it filed its report for the financial year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 showing the income and its tax liability, etc. The appellant also filed the audit report trading account, Balance sheet etc. as required under law.4. The appellant company followed the accounting system - AS 7 as laid down by the Institution of Chartered Accountants of India, wherein the closing value work-in-progress is determined on the basis of method provided therein. The assessing authority issued a notice under Section 143(2) s of the Ac...
Madan Missir Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
D. Biswas, J.1. This writ petition is filed controverting the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No. 391/2002. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner praying for a declaration that he was born on 10.6.1953 and, consequent thereupon, to allow him to continue in service of the Railways.2. We have heard Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Railways.3. The writ petitioner joined the services of the Railways as Dak Carrier with effect from 5.8.1971 initially on daily wage basis. He was given authorized pay with effect from 3.6.1972 and was confirmed in the post of Khalashi by the order dated 7.9.1978. In the meantime, his service book was prepared. In the service book, all necessary particulars were entered on 5.6.1974 showing his date of birth as 15.12.1942. The petitioner al...
N. Tolpishak and ors. Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Nepolean Singh, Learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 1; and none appears for the respondents 2 and 3.2. The short factual panorama of the petitioners' case is that the petitioners of the present joint writ petition took their respective shops on lease from the respective private oweners. It is also the specific case of the petitioners that the respective shops occupied by the petitioners do not belong to the Imphal Municipal Council/Imphal Municipality, but those shops are the shops of the private land owners.3. By this writ petition the petitioners are assailing the notice being No. IM/24/(IV)93-94(A), Imphal, the 4th November, 1998 to all the writ petitioners. The copies of the said notices dated 04.11.1998 are available at Annexure-A/2 (colly). For easy reference, one of the notices dated 04.11.1998 is quoted hereunder:Imphal, the 4th Nov.'98To,N....
Amiya Deb Laskar and ors. Vs. Assam Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
A.H. Saikia, J.1. By means of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought for quashment of the common Judgment and Order dated 11.10.1999 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue (for short, 'the Board') in Case Nos. 64MRA(C)/97; 65RA(C)/ 97 and 66RA(C)/97 by which three appeals preferred by the appellants/ petitioners herein were dismissed without interfering with the order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar (for short, 'the A.D.C) under Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act').2. The basic grievance of the petitioners as projected herein is that though tenancy of the respondents under the petitioners was admitted, the Deputy Commissioner granted acquisition of ownership to the respondents under Section 23 of the Act without following the procedural law so prescribed under Rules 10,11 and 12 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Rules, 1972 (for...
Bimal Debnath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one Bimal Debnath seeking a direction for return of certain goods allegedly seized by the Border Security Force personnel (BSF) and seeking a further direction for payment of compensation for infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner arising out of the seizure of the goods.2. The petitioner in his writ petition claims that his father Digendra Kumar Debnath had a shop at Ekinpur Bazar in Belonia Sub-Division of South Tripura District and that his father was doing business in the aforesaid shop and was dealing with articles such as grocery, cloths, readymade garments etc. The further claim is that the father of the petitioner had a licence for doing the aforesaid business under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A copy of the licence in the name of the petitioner's father is enclosed as Annexure-A to the writ petition.3. In the writ petition it was stated that due to the old age of the petitione...
L. Memtombi Devi Vs. State of Manipur and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
U.B. Saha, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the writ petitioners, 4(four) in number, assail the order dated 12.3.1999 vide Memo No. I/13/97-SCERT (A) issued by the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Government of Manipur wherein and whereunder the appointment/extension/engagement/service petitioners and 16 others was cancelled.2. Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned G.A. as well as Mr. N. Umakanta, learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents.3. For better appreciation of the case, it is necessary to state the brief facts in short details and necessary for the disposal of the case are petitioners were initially engaged as Account Clerks/LDC and Grade - IV respectively under the State Counsel of Educational Research & Training (in short 'S.C.E.R.T.') by two different orders on the same day, i.e. on 30.11.1998, on contract basis. Since the date of their initial engagement, the petitioners were working witho...
L. Ibohalbi Singh and ors. Vs. Director of Health Services and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The writ petitioners are the Male Health Workers who have successfully completed the training course for the Male Health Worker's Course of one year in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal which is a Manipur Government Institute. The private respondents 3 to 164 are also the Male Health Workers who have successfully completed the training course for the Male Health Workers' Course of 3 (three) months in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal, i.e. the same training institute from where the writ petitioners have undergone the training in the Male Health Workers' Course of one year. It is also an undeniable fact that as per the policy of the State Government as well as the Central Government, the State Government (Health Department) sent Male Health Workers for in service orientation training course for the period changed from time to time, i.e. for a period of 3 months or for a period of 12 months or for a peri...
H.N. Bharali Vs. Lily Marbaniang
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. In this case, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 36-A of the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills 1937 assailing the order dated 11.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in TCA No. 3(T) 2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 23.06.2003 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in TS 2(T) 1993. After filing the application, apparently as a matter of abundant caution, the petitioner filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning a delay of 7 days in filing the said application.2. I have heard Mr. K. Khan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. VGK Kynta, the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. I have carefully gone through the explanation of the delay stated in the application. I have also perused the written objection against the prayer for condonation. The first point for determination is whether there is a period of limit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »