Guwahati Court February 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.
Himangshu Dutta Vs. Md. Kala Mia
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. By means of this revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the 'Code'), the petitioner herein has called in question the legality and the correctness of the Order dated 18.9.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. No. 36 of 1999 whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code preferred by the defendant-petitioner herein praying for rejection of the plaint in the said suit instituted by the respondent herein has been rejected.2. A land dispute between the parties has culminated into the present proceeding which was preceded by another T.S. No. 28 of 75 filed by the respondent herein. The said suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and consequential relief in the form of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. Learned Addl. Munsiff Agartala, West Tripura finally adjudicated that suit (TS 28/ 75) by dismissing the same. In the second ...
Jagnabalkya Chakraborty Vs. Bidyarthi Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. The short but interesting question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner can invoke the general power of amendment of a Civil Court under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when his application for amendment of his pleadings is barred by the newly added proviso to Order VI, Rule 17?2. The relevant facts generating the present controversy may be narrated at the very outset. The petitioner as the plaintiff instituted T.S. (Partition) No. 11 of 2005 before the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, against the respondents for a declaration of his share in the suit land on the strength of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Suruchi Chakraborty, etc. The suit has been contested by the respondents. When the trial has already commenced and the petitioner was called upon to adduce his evidence, he filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 to amend his plaint as per item Nos. (I), (II) ...
Juber Ahmed Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-09-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner claims appointment as Asstt. Teacher in the Middle or L.P School in Karimganj District against 10% vacancy stated to have kept reserved by the Government of Assam for the purpose of sons and daughters of retired school teachers.2. The petitioner's case is that his father who was a Hindi teacher in Mothair Ali M.V. School in the district of Karimganj retired from service on 31.5,2000 and thereafter he filed an application before the District, Elementary Officer, Karimganj claiming appointment as Asstt. Teacher under the 10% of the vacancy kept reserved by the Government for appointment of sons and daughters of the retired school teachers. The petitioner's further case is that he was-a candidate pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996 for selection to the post of Asstt. teacher in L.P/Middle school in his district but no select list has been published.3. I have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner a...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrinalini Talukdar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-09-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The Insurance Company by this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the award dated 24th December, 1999, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 747(k) of 1995 awarding a sum of Rs. 6,65,032 with interest with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition.2. I have heard Mr. Section Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Deka, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the income-tax assessment order, pertaining to the financial year 94-95 was exhibited as Ext. 4 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the monthly income of the deceased has to be ascertained on the basis of the said assessment order and the same being around seven thousand, the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding compensation by taking monthly income of the deceased as ten ...
Manmatha Rajan Tribedi Vs. Gopal Krishna T.E. Co. (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 3/2001, dated 5.9.2001 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior) Division No. 1, Morigaon in Title Suit No. 27/93 on 31.3.2001 by which the learned trial court decree the suit against the defendant/ respondents.2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/appellant, inter alia, is that 4(four) plots of land measuring 3 Bighas covered by Dag No. 219, P.O. No. 6, 4B-1K covered by Dag No. 198 of P.P. No. 8, 4K-4L, covered by Dag No. 229 of P.P. No. 7 and 2B-0K covered by Dag No. 217 of P.P. No. 5 in total 10 bighas, 15 lechas of land situated at No. 2, Neili Bagisha under Uttar Khola Mouza, in the district of Morigaon is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, which is fully described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff, purchased an area of land measuring 3 Bighas (i...
Vareli Textile Industries Vs. Cit
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has raised the following four questions at the instance of the assessee arising out of ITA No. 5451/Ahd/1989R.A. No. 579/Ahd/1994 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that share issue expenses of Rs. 8,31,384 is capital expenditure and is not business expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fees paid to the RoC for increasing the share capital of the company is capital expenditure and, therefore, not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the prospectus report fee of Rs. 3,000 for new issue of shares is capital expenditure and, therefore, not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the c...
Dilip Kumar Kalita and anr. Vs. Nilima Saikia
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The opposite party herein, namely, Miss Nilima Saikia, made an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries caused to her in a motor vehicular accident, on 2nd June, 2004, at Nagaon. This application gave rise to M.A.C. Case No. 1492/2004. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, recorded the evidence of the claimant on 7th November, 2005. The claimant was not cross-examined on that day by learned Counsel for the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who were the registered owner and driver respectively of the offending vehicle and who accordingly stood impleaded as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the said claim proceeding. By order, 7th November, 2005, the learned Tribunal closed the evidence of the claimant and fixed 10th January, 2006 as the date of recording of evidence of the opposite party to the said claim proceedings (i.e., the present petitioners) and also for arguments. The present petitioners, the...
Shri Vanalalbela Vs. the State of Mizoram
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Aizawl in GR Case No. 283/98 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 376(f), IPC and convicting him under that section with the sentence to undergo RI for six years with fine of Rs. 3000/- in default RI for another period of three months. The prosecution story in brief is that on 7-7-97 the father of the victim girl (P.W. 1) lodged an FIR with the Kawnpui police out post alleging that his daughter, i.e. the victim girl aged 11 years and 6 months was raped by the accused/appellant on 10-6-1995 when she visited his house. She being afraid to disclose the incident under threat of the appellant, the matter was not reported and the informant could come to know about the same when the appellant himself disclosed the offence in a drunken condition. The FIR further disclosed that the informant, i.e. the father of the victim girl upon hearing ...
Capt L.Z. Sailo Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. George Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant and also heard Miss Dinari T. Azyu along with Mrs. Helen Dawngliani led by Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior Government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (J) Aizawl District in RFA No. 1/2001 setting aside and quashing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 2/1996 dated 13.12.2000.3. The Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 2/96 was instituted by the present appellant, claiming damages and compensation for purported for malicious prosecution against him by the defendants/respondents herein. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 13.12.2000 decreed the suit awarding an amount of rupees 1 lakh as compensation on account of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff/appellant. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred an appeal being RFA No. 1/2001 b...
State of Assam and ors. Vs. Makhan Pegu and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. This appeal raises the following questions:(1) Whether proviso to Section 80 of the Missing Autonomous Council Act, 1995, as amended, confers power on the State Government to remove members of the Interim General Council or the Executive Council as the case may be appointed under Section 80 at the pleasure of the Government?(2) Whether principles of natural justice are required to be followed before passing orders removing such nominated members of Interim General Council or the Executive Council, as the case may be?2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein challenging the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the State Government removing them from the Executive Council in exercise of powers conferred under Section 80 of the aforesaid Act. Learned Judge took the view that the removal of the writ petitioners on the ground of their unsatisfactory nature of w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »