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.
Nityananda Debnath and ors. Vs. Estate Officer and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. These two writ petitions, being interrelated, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.R. Dey, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. D. Majurnder, the Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. P. K. Biswas, the learned Assistant S. G. For the respondent-Union of India.3. At the outset, for proper adjudication, it will be necessary to set out the facts of the two cases in seriatim as follows :W.P. (C) No. 285 of 20014. In this case the material facts of the case are that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 are occupying different plots of land in R.S. Plot No. 592 under Khatian No. 4/2 of Briddhyanagar Mouja in West Tripura District while the petitioner No. 10 is occupying a plot under R.S. Plot No. 594 under the same Khatian. The petitioner No. 11 is also occupying a plot under R.S. Plot No. 595 under the same Khatian. There is no ...
Kuladhar Hazarika Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
B.S. Reddy, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against judgment and order dated May 31, 2005 made in WP(C) No. 6544/1999 by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondents herein challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The facts have been succinctly noticed by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order and therefore we will not burden this judgment by repeating the same, but, however, the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal shall be noticed.3. That a charge sheet dated May 21,1986 was issued by the Respondent Corporation, against the appellant alleging that the appellant had acted in contravention of the orders dated April 28, 1986 and April 29, 1986 issued by the management requiring him to hand over the charge to his reliever. There was further charge of failure to hand over the charge to the reli...
S.S. Photographic Lab. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Amitava Roy, J.1. The common challenge, is to the imposed liability to tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), allegedly thrust on the petitioners, however for different assessment periods. The petitioners having unsuccessfully contended before the respondent-authorities that considering the nature of the business, in which they are engaged, the demand is untenable in law, have approached this Court for redress. As identical questions of law are involved, all the three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. I have heard Mr. J. Bora, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned Additional Advocate-General, Assam, for the respondents.3. The thumbnail facts necessary to provide the contextual background may be noted. First the petitioners' version. The petitioner M/s. Photographic Laboratory Pvt. Limited, is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 w...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Deb
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.2001 made in Original Application No. 375 of 1999 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati.2. That, all together 28 applicants, including the sole respondent in this petition, invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal praying for directions as against the petitioners to give effect to the Office Memo No. 20014/ 3/83-E-IV dated 4.12.1983 and the Office Memo bearing similar number dated 1.12.1988 and for payment of Special Duty Allowance in terms of the said Office Memoranda. Out of the 28 applicants, 23 of them earlier approached the Tribunal praying for issuance of similar directions. The learned Tribunal disposed of the Original Application directing the petitioners to pay Special Duty Allowance (SDA) with effect from 1.11.1983 or from the date on which the applicants therein joined respective- posts in the North Eastern Region, whichever was later, within a specified...
Mustt. Amrana Begum Mazumdar Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of one Nazul Haque Mazumdar, who was at the relevant point of time, serving as CO, V.D.O. of the Baithalangso Police Station. According to the petitioner, on 18.5.1996, while on duty, the husband of the petitioner was kidnapped by ULFA Extremists. In regard to the aforesaid incident, the petitioner had lodged a F.I.R. in connection with which Baithalangso P.S. Case No. 36 of 1996 under Section 365 IPC read with Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was registered. According to the petitioner, the whereabouts of her husband since 18.5.1996 are not known. In these circumstances after the repeated attempts of the petitioner to obtain financial relief at the hands of the Government had failed, the present approach to this Court has been made under Article 226 of the Constitution; The prayers made in the writ petition are for payment of the salary of the husband of the petitioner till such time that her husband can be presu...
Surjya Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Anil Chandra Kar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2004 upholding the judgment and decree dated 16,11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belonia, South Tripura in T.S. No. 31 of 1997.2. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel for the appellants strenuously urges that the following questions involves substantial questions of law:1. Whether a suit for recovery of possession based on title can valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as extended to the State of Tripura and can a decree be passed if the suit is under valued by the plaintiff ?2. Whether the pendency of a Revenue proceeding challenging the order of allotment of the suit land will bar oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to try such a suit ?3. I have carefully noted the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appella...
Mulibash Hastasilpa Samabay Samity Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Assam an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioners in CR No. 3627/98 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-9-2001 whereby and where under the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants.2. The writ petition has been filed by the appellants herein with a prayer to declare that the finished products made of the bamboo and canes including the mats, chati, beti etc. are not 'forest produce' within the meaning of that expression as provided for under Section 3(3) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, as amended from time to time.3. The sum and substance of the case set up by the appellants in this writ appeal is that they are not required to obtain transit pass/permit for transportation of the said finished products. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of the contention relied upon the Notification issued by the State Govt. on 4-5-1992, which is to the following effect:GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›