Guwahati Court December 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.
Atul Bora Vs. Akan Bora
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this miscellaneous application, the election petitioner has sought for necessary permission, under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, to put such question(s) to the witness No. 2 for the election petitioner, namely, the Returning Officer, which might be put to the witness, in cross-examination, by the adverse party, the case of the election petitioner, for seeking, such a permission, being, in brief, thus. In his examination-in-chief, the Returning Officer has deposed that without identity card being displayed, nobody was allowed to enter the place of counting, the engineers did not open the upper portion of the controllingunits and that the engineers had opened only the lower portion of the controlling units. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has given evidence to the effect that when the engineers took up examination of the controlling unit of polling station No. 164, he had not made any announcement that the engineer would be opening the controllin...
Naresh Das and anr. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1999 is preferred by the two appellants challenging the judgment dated 23.2.1999 in ST (Wt/A) 20 of 1994 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby two accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 396 of the I.P.C. On the basis of the said conviction, the learned trial court has ordered seven years imprisonment and also a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for six months to the accused-appellants. Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1999 is preferred by the State of Tripura against the very same judgment of the learned trial court seeking enhancement of sentence passed against the two accused convicted under Section 396 of the LP.C.On orders passed by this Court, the two appeals were taken up for hearing together.2. The case arose out of an incident at 0030 hrs. (mid-night) on 25.4.1987, when a gang of criminals armed with deadly weapons raided the house of Haric...
Naresh Das and anr. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Criminal Appeal No: 12 of 1999 is preferred by the two appellants challenging the judgment dated 23-2-1999 in ST (Wt/A) 20 of 1994 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby two accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 396 of the I.P.C. On the basis of the said conviction, the learned trial Court has ordered seven years imprisonment and also a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for six months to the accused-appellants. Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1999 is preferred by the 'State of Tripura against the very same judgment of the learned trial Court seeking enhancement of sentence passed against the two accused convicted under Section 396 of the I.P.C.2. Oh orders passed by this Court, the two appeals were taken up for hearing together)3. The case arose out of an incident at 0030 hrs. (mid-night) on 25-4-1987, when a gang of criminals armed with deadly weapons raided the house of ...
BipIn Chandra Kalita Vs. Sarama Kalita and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Amitava Roy, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2000, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2 Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 24 of 1991, affirming the verdict of the learned Trial Court dismissing his Title Suit No. 68 of 1986, is in appeal.2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Kalita, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff and Mr. S. Medhi, Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Baruah, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4-defendants. The name of the proforma respondent No. 5 had been struck of in terms of the order of this Court.3. The pleaded version of the appellant-plaintiff in short, is that Ratan Kalita and Jurai Kalita (both deceased) were brothers owning and possessing separately in equal shares land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 8 Lechas covered by Dag No. 711 (new)/463 (old) of K.P Patta No. 178 (new)/103 (old) in village Sualkuchi under Pub Bongsor Mauza in the district of Kamrup described in Schedule-...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Indus ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
A. Hazarika, J.1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division), Digboi, Assam, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 has brought in challenge the Award dated January 29,1996 passed in Reference Case No. 59 of 1978 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and/or setting aside the Award as aforesaid.2. A dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Union of India, viz;Having regard to the past practices and in view of the amended Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, whether or not any bonus for the accounting year 1975 is payable to the workmen of Assam Oil Company Limited? In either case to what relief are these workmen entitled?3. The adjudication so referred was brought on the file of the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal only), being...
Mahendra Kr. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The appellant filed the writ petition being Writ Petition (c) No. 3399/2003 challenging the order dated 16th/17th of August, 2002 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service as Head Constable of the Railway Protection Force (in short, RPF) mainly contending that the procedure required to be adopted in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him has not been complied with, inasmuch, the Enquiry Officer in coming to the finding that charges have been proved, has placed reliance on the statements made by two persons, namely, Ram Avatar Singh and Shri Bijendra Singh before the preliminary enquiry conducted by the authority prior to issuance of charge memo, without producing them before the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him, for cross-examination by the appellant, thereby denying the appellant of his right to cross-examine the witnesses and consequently violating the principles of natural justice. Such order of dismissal ...
Md. Arju Ali Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. M. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release his monthly salary stated to be payable from June 1996. This prayer has been made by filing the writ petition on 28.9.2006.3. The petitioner is an MA in Economics and he was first appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school called Jaluknbari Girls High School in the district of Kamrup on 1.6.1987. The petitioner has not annexed the copy of the order of appointment, but has annexed the copy of the certificate dated 20.7.1992 issued by the Headmistress of the School certifying his services in the school as an Assistant Teacher from 1st June, 1987. Thus it is not known as to on what basis he was so appointed. It appears that the services of the teachers of the school were provincialised by Annexure-2 order dated 8.4.1993 including that o...
B and a Plantation and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The material facts and various stages giving rise to this writ petition are not in dispute and may, therefore, be set out, in brief, as follows:(i) Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by one of its directors as petitioner No. 2. The petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tea. The return for the assessment year 1995-96 was filed by the petitioner-company on November 24, 1995. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, completed on March 11, 1998, the petitioner company's assessment for the assessment year 1995-96 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While making the said assessment, the petitioner company's claim in respect of deduction from income on account of bonus was allowed under Section 43B of the Act. After completion of this assessment, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, issued a notice, dated April 6, 1999, to the petitioner-company ...
Amjad Ali and ors. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
A. Hazarika, J.1. Heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Advocate. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.6.05 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in Sessions Case No. 9(J)/2003, whereby the four accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months each.3. On 12.10.99, an ejahar was lodged by one Md. Moinul Haque (P.W. 6) before the Officer-in-Charge of Jogighopa Police Station, alleging that at around 11-30 pm in the night before, some assailants trespassed upon the house of his maternal uncle Md. Khalilur Rahman and killed him in his bed. In the FIR it was mentioned that the deceased had land disputes with Md. Samad Ali, Md. Salam Ali, Ali Ha...
Keisham (O) Chaoba Devi and ors. Vs. Keisham Manihar Singh and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The revision petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Manipur West, Imphal in Original Review Petition No. 31 of 2005 restoring the original Probate Case No. 23 of 2003 vacating the order dated 5.6.2004, whereby the probate case was dropped on withdrawal.2. I have heard oral arguments made by Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel assisted by Ms. Harichhaya Devi, advocate for the petitioners and that of Shri H.NK Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Genandro Hijam, advocate for the respondent No. 1. I have also perused the impugned order and the records.3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this revision application are that the respondent No. 1. filed an application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the Court of District Judge praying for issuance of a probate certificate of the estate of late Keisham Kunjo Singh, which was bequeath by the testator under Will dated 24.2.1999. The said applicati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »