Guwahati Court July 2006 Judgments
indrajit Terang Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one Indrajlt Terang alleging that his younger brother Bhupen Singh Terang was picked up by the police personnel from the Home of Orphan and Destitute Children at Rongkhelan, Dlphu and thereafter has been subjected to torture due to which he died at Diphu Hospital.2. This Court vide its order dated 19-9-2005 directed the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon to make an enquiry into the matter and submit report to this Court recording its findings with reference to the allegations made in the writ petition.3. The learned District and Sessions Judge having made an enquiry into the incident pursuant to the directions of this Court submitted report dated 17-7-2006, which is to the following effect:In the light of my above the discussions based on unimpeachable account of the eye witnesses coupled with the circumstantial evidence, it is found to be established that the death of Bhupen Singh was caused not due to injuries ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarungbam Joykumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. In this writ appeal, the judgment and order dated 4.1.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1141/2005 by a learned Single Judge of this court, is under challenge. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein.Background Facts:2. The writ petitioners are the true and absolute owners of the lands and the buildings constructed thereon situated inside the palace compound at Imphal. Each one of them had purchased years ago small extent of lands from late Maharaja for a valid consideration and thereafter constructed their respective houses and living therein. The said properties are sought to be acquired compulsorily vide Notification dated 11.4.2005 for a public purpose, namely, Protection of Historical Monuments of Maharaja and Rajdarbar of New Palace. Being aggrieved by the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') the appellants herein challenged the same in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whi...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Chandra Charitable Trust
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
R.S. Garg, J.Mrs. Mona Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the assessee.2. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :"1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee-trust is a religious trust entitled to the benefit of section it?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that Jainism is not a religion, and if Jainism is not a religion, the bar contained under section 13(l)(b) would not apply in the present case?3. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts of the case in holding that the fresh assessment made by the Income Tax Officer pursuant to the order under section 263 made by the Commissioner of Income Tax is redundant?"3. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that section 11 and section 12 of the Income Tax Act while provide certain exemption to Charitable Religious Trusts, section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Kumar Nikhil Kumar Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The writ appellants filed the writ petitions challenging the fresh assessment orders made under Section 18 of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 ('the 1993 Act') read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the 1956 Act') by the Superintendent of Taxes, Assam, cancelling original assessment orders as well as the demand notes issued pursuant to such order of fresh assessment. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties by the common judgment and order dated 10.5.2006 dismissed the writ petitions refusing to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal provided under Section 33(6) of the 1993 Act as well as under the provision of the 1956 Act, making it clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions shall not stand on the way of the writ petitioners/appellants to approach the appellate forum if so advised. The pres...
Tag this Judgment!Jhanwarlal Patwa Vs. Uday NaraIn Goswami and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Both these applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by and between the same parties involving the same issue in respect of the orders passed by the Trial Court rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to re-cross examine the defence witness have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order. The basic facts materials for the purpose of disposal of the applications are stated below.2. The petitioner herein as the plaintiff has instituted Title Suit Nos. 68/2000 and 63/2000 against the respondents herein as the defendants. The respondents claiming the following reliefs have filed both the suits in respect of the tenanted premises apprehending disconnection of electricity connection.a) For a declaration of the plaintiffs tenancy right under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972,b) For both permanent and temporary injunction against the defendant restraining him from disconnecting the electric lin...
Tag this Judgment!Priyanka Estate International (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Assam an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. These writ petitions are arising out of the construction of the multistoried RCC building in S.C. Goswami Road, Panbazar, Guwahati, challenging the notice issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation ('GMC') to stop construction and also the order issued by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority ('GMDA') for demolition of multistoried building in question constructed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 5018 of 2002 and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No. 2747 of 2006. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 5146 of 2002 raised the question of illegal and unauthorized construction of the said building and prayed for demolition of the same. Since the matter in issue in the writ petitions are common being relating to the construction of the said multistoried building, all the writ petitions are taken up for hearing analogously as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties.(A) Background facts:2. The facts in brief in respect of the writ petitions are narrated b...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Brick Industry and anr. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Ms. U. Baruah, learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. B. Kalita, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India/Respondent.2. The judgment and decree dated 16.02.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 20/97, by which the appeal preferred by the Bank/Respondent was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.05.1997 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Jorhat in T.S. No. 176/94 and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-Bank/respondent herein for Rs. 20,682.93 with costs of the suit and interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization of the decreetal amount in full, jointly and severally against both the defendants/appellants herein, has been assailed in this Second appeal.3. On 12.04.2000 at the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial question of law we...
Tag this Judgment!W. Kumar Singh Vs. Commissioner/Secretary (Cada) Govt. of Manipur and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. Subject matter in issue in the present writ petition is appointment by promotion to one vacancy in the post of Superintending Engineer, Command Area Development Authority, (for short CADA) arose on 01.03.2003. Admittedly, the post of Superintending Engineer (CADA) is a selection post for which writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 4, Shri K. Manoranjan Singh are eligible for appointment by promotion. Under the relevant recruitment rules for the post of Superintending Engineer (CADA), the Executive Engineers in the CADA possessing degree in Agri. Engineering or its equivalent from a recognized institute with six years' regular service in the grade are eligible for consideration for promotion.2. DPC associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission (for short MPSC) held its meeting on 15.12.2003 and considered the cases of 5 (five) eligible officers including the writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 4, Shri K. Manoranjan Singh for promotion to t...
Tag this Judgment!Tapas Shil Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-9-1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur in S.T. 3(NT/KMP)/1996 convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. We have heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik and Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Counsel for the State-respondent.3. The prosecution version leading to the criminal proceeding may be noticed in brief:The deceased Subimal Sarkar was a tenant in the house of appellant Tapas Shil and his brother in the village Hararkhala under Kamalpur police station. Subimal was serving as Field Assistant in the Department of Agriculture and at the relevant time he was posted at Hararkhala. On 29-5-1995 Subimal invited his friends Kajal Chandra Das (P.W. 3), Bijoy Das-l(P.W. 8), Bijoy-2 (P.W. 11), Ranjit De...
Tag this Judgment!Bidyut Kumar Saha Vs. Smt. Tapa Saha
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
A.B. Pal, J.1. The judgment dated 1.6.01 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (Divorce) No. 14 of 98 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner-husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife has been assailed in the present appeal filed by him.2. We have heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The factual matrix giving rise to the divorce proceeding may be briefly stated thus : On 30.1.97, the appellant and the respondent married according to Hindu rites and customs. But within a very short spell, to be more precise, from the very beginning, the marital relation suffered hiccups and stumbled again and again. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when he went to see the bride before marriage, he was not treated well by the respondent's father and other ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »