Guwahati Court February 2006 Judgments

Reboti Ray Vs. Sashi Kanta Budhia @ Agarwal

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. The respondent herein instituted, as plaintiff, Title Suit No. 07 of 2001, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bongaigaon, seeking, inter alia, a decree of declaration of his rights, title, interest and khas possession over the suit land and permanent injunction. On an application made by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Section 151 thereof, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In course of time, the petitioner herein appeared, as defendant, in the suit, aforementioned and contested the same by filing written statement. When the suit was pending for hearing, the same was dismissed for default, on 11.11. 2005, as the petitioner was found absent without taking any steps. Thereafter, a, petition was filed by the plaintiff under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking restoration of the suit on the ground that his counsel...

Monwar Ali and ors. Vs. Mustt. Rayachan Bewa and ors.

Court: Guwahati

D. Biswas, J.1. This appeal is directed Q against the judgment dated 30-5-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 11/97 whereby Title Suit No. 248/88 has been decreed in reversal to the judgment of dismissal passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, Dhubri.2. The appeal was admitted by the order dated 3-8-1998 for hearing on certain substantial questions of law. On 2-2-2005, the questions formulated earlier have been recast and the substantial question of law formulated for adjudication in this Second Appeal, after hearing the learned Counsel, for the parties is as below:Whether the plaintiff/respondent could establish a case for decree of the suit declaring their right of easement of necessity over the suit path as provided under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882?3. I have heard Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the respondents.4. The respondent herein as plain...

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Dhiren Chaudhury

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.2. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against a judgment and order dated July 14, 1997 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Upper Assam, Dibrugarh in E.S.I. Case No. 3 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated July 14, 1997, the learned Court below while holding that the respondent unit was covered by the provisions of the Act for the period after April 1, 1996 had thought it proper to interfere with the demands raised for the preceding periods commencing from November 1, 1990 and provisionally quash the same. While doing so, the learned Court below, however, gave liberty to the E.S.I. Corporation to proceed in respect of the aforesaid earlier period by calling for the relevant records and registers of the Unit of the respondent and, thereafter, to issue notice of contribution and proceed in the matter under Section 4...

Ganesh Electric Stores Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. The refusal of the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process pursuant to a NIT issued for works relating to external electrification of the new Central Jail at Sarusajai is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.2. The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset.A NIT was published on 3.12.2005 in all leading newspapers of the State inviting bids for the work of electrification in the premises of the new Central Jail at Sarusajai which is presently under construction. In terms of the NIT issued, applications for the bid documents were required to be submitted to the Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Electrical) on or before 9.12.2005. The NIT dated 3.12.2005 contemplated a pre-bid meeting to be held on 16.12.2005 for purposes of clarification, if any, that may be sought by intending tenderers submission of the bids on or before 20.12.2005 and the opening of the bids received on the same date at 14.15 hours in pre...

Pawan Kumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned Counsel, for the petitioners and Mr. B. Kalita, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel representing the Bank/respondent.2. By means of this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 12/94 rejecting the petition that questioned the jurisdiction of the Court concerned and holding that the learned Court at Tinsukia had the jurisdiction to try the related suit.3. The basic prayer, in this application, is that the petitioners actually and voluntarily reside at Dibrugarh and the immovable properties, being the subject-matter of the suit also situate therein and as such in view of Sections 16 and 20 of CPC, the Tinsukia Court has no jurisdiction to try such suit.4. Mr. Kejriwal, the learned Counsel has strenuously argued that the learned trial Court took absolutely an erroneous view, while deciding the preliminary...

Promode Boro and ors. Vs. Paramesh Dutta and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. The issues raised in this group of Contempt Petitions being common, all the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all the contempt petitions are school teachers who were appointed under the O.B.B. Scheme in the Mangaldoi Sub-Division of Darrang District sometime in the year 2001. All such appointments were valid upto 31.3.2002 and the posts in which the petitioners were appointed were to be abolished on and from the said date, i.e., 31.3.2002, i.e., on the date of expiry of the ninth five-year plan. The writ petitioners along with other O.B.B. teachers, numbering 5,218 in all, had instituted a series of writ petitions before this Court, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 8764/2001 and other connected cases which were disposed of by this Court on 8.4.2002 with the following operative directions:25. In view of what has been stated above, the above mentioned batch of writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Govt. of...

Ganesh Electric Stores Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2006)2GLR437

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. The refusal of the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process pursuant to a NIT issued for works relating to external electrification of the new Central Jail at Sarusajai is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.2. The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset.A NIT was published on 3.12.2005 in all leading newspapers of the State inviting bids for the work of electrification in the premises of the new Central Jail at Sarusajai which is presently under construction. In terms of the NIT issued, applications for the bid documents were required to be submitted to the Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Electrical) on or before 9.12.2005. The NIT dated 3.12.2005 contemplated a pre-bid meeting to be held on 16.12.2005 for purposes of clarification, if any, that may be sought by intending tenderers submission of the bids on or before 20.12.2005 and the opening of the bids received on the same date at 14.15 hours in pres...

Sri Mithu Kalita Alias Mitu Kalita Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. The death reference and criminal appeal have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 7-6-2005, passed by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No. 31/2005, whereby the accused Mithu Kalita alias Mitu Kalita stands convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death. The reference for confirmation of the sentence of death has been made under Section 306, Cr. P.C. and the appeal has been preferred by the accused against his conviction and also the sentence of death passed against him.2. In the present case, a minor girl, namely, X, aged about 5 years 1 month, who had just started going to school, became allegedly victim of an indescribably nerve-shattering and beastly incident of an attempted rape and, then, murder at the hands of the accused, the victim, X, being daughter of PW 12 and CW 1 and the incident having taken place in the evening of 14th of March, 2005.3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as ...

Smt. Phulo Bala Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. B. C. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. C. Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. Counsel (for short 'CGC') appearing for the Union of India-Army /Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. H. K. Mahanta, learned State counsel appearing for the State Respondents.2. By means of this writ petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the mother of the deceased Late Rubul Pal Das who was alleged to have been killed by the Army, has basically sought for a writ of Mandamus with a direction to the respondents to pay, as a compensation, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) only to her for the death of her son in custody of the Army.3. The brief facts of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties, are that the petitioner's son Late Rubul Pal Das, at the relevant time, was a student of Tamulpur Commerce College and preparing for his final examination of 1st paper Degree Course. He was actively associated with th...

Sadhana Saha and anr. Vs. Commandant Provisioning, M.T. Pool and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T. Vaiphei, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.7.1998 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in T.S. (M.A.C.) No. 158 of 1997 by which a compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition was awarded to the appellants for the injuries sustained by their son in a vehicular accident. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellants claimed enhancement of the compensation amount in this appeal.2. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, the learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The material facts of the case are no longer in dispute. The appellants are the parents of a minor boy, namely, Raki Saha. The victim boy was about 8 years old at the time of the accident in question and was a student of class I. On 1.6.1997, at about 5 p.m., the vi...