Guwahati Court August 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.
M. Birendra Sharma and ors. Vs. Lokeswar Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Amitava Roy, J.1. Both the Civil Revision petition and the First Appeal involve the same parties. The issues raised are also identical. Both were heard analogously and have been disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Mr. M. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties.3. As the revision petition and the appeal relate to two different suits namely Rent Suit No. 3/84 and Rent Suit No. 1/93, narration of the facts pertaining thereto would be separately made.4. The petitioners instituted four suits being Rent Suit Nos. 3/84, 4/87, 1/90 and 1/93 against the Respondents/Opposite Parties as defendants praying for a decree inter alia for paddy rent @ 22 mounds 10 kati per year together with compensation for delayed deposit thereof. The Suits relate to different periods of the Bengali Calendar year. The Rent Suit No. 1/93 and the Rent Suit No.3/ 84 with which we are concerned correspond t...
Executive Committee of Shree Shree Shiv Durga (Chandi) Mandir Parichal ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Malakar, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus/certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/order(s) filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 5.6.2006 and 28.6.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No. 19/06 by which the interim order of injunction dated 24.1.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 249/05 in favour of the plaintiff/petitioners, was stayed.3. At the very outset, it appears from the perusal of the cause title of the instant petition that by this application the petitioners have tried to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the said Constitutional provision does not provide for issuance of any writ of mandamus...
Damodar Sarma Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-12-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Having been convicted under Section 292, IPC, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jorhat in G. R. Case No. 486/ 2000 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo Section I for another 2 months and being unsuccessful in Criminal Appeal No. 35/01, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, vide judgment and order dated 11-12-2001 affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by the accused petitioner by filing this Criminal Revision.2. I have heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.3. The prosecution story leading to the conviction of the accused-petitioner, inter alia, is that PW-3, Sri Manik Goswami, Sub-Inspector of Jorhat Sadar P.S. while was on patrolling duty on 28-6-2000, entered into the shop ...
Central Bank of India Vs. Asharan Begraj Rathi and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Challenging the refusal to restore Money Suit No 30/85 filed by the plaintifi7appellant-Bank by the then Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 12/94 which was dismissed for default, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff-Bank.2. I have heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the defendant/ respondents.3. The plaintiff/appellant-Bank filed the aforesaid suit for realization of a sum of Rs. 8,75,806.98 with interest thereon against the defendant/ respondents. The suit was at the hearing stage, i.e., 23.8.1998 was fixed for hearing. Having found the plaintiff/appellant-Bank absent on that date without any step, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/appellant-Bank filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC, for restoration of the said suit to file along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the sam...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C and C Construction (P.) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Precise question that falls for consideration in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution as to what are the necessary requirement of law for insisting the civil court to refer a matter to arbitral tribunal in a case containing an agreed arbitration clause vis-a-vis the legality and validity or otherwise of the impugned orders dated 3.12.2004 and 12.7.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 28/2004. The aforesaid suit was registered on the filing of a plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking for declaration and/or cancellation of the contract earlier allotted to him by the defendant authorities is illegal, invalid and incomplete and for other usual reliefs. Summon of the suit having been served, the defendant-petitioners appeared before the learned trial court and submitted their written statement on 31.3.2004, wherein a plea about the non-maintainability o...
K.S. Oils Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. In a prosecution launched under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the 'PFA Act'), against a company or a firm, a question, which though not very often, arises for determination is as to whether all the directors of a company or all the partners of a firm can be prosecuted and, if so, under what circumstances, such a prosecution is permissible. This very question has, in fact, arisen for determination in the present revision too. The question, so posed, brings us to a more fundamental question and the question is this: when can a person be nominated to represent a company or a firm within the scheme of the PFA Act and what is the effect of such nomination on the prosecution launched against the company or the firm.2. For answering the questions posed above, it is necessary to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present revision.A complaint was made, in the Court of the CJM, Kamrup, by a Food Inspector, working in the O...
Sonoline X-ray and Pathological Center Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.The petitioner is the owner of a Pathological Diagnostic Center. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Silchar whereby the petitioner has been asked to get himself registered under the Assam General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is providing X-Ray and Sonography services to his clients and since he not a dealer of the X-Ray and Sonographic plates and, as such, he is not liable to get itself registered under the Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of All Assam Press Owners' Association and Ors. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 2003 (3) GLT 158 : (2005) 1 GLR 347. The above decision was rendered by this Court relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Rainbow Colour Laboratories L...
Karuna Kanta Barman Vs. Ramesh Baishya
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.9.2003, passed, in Title Suit No. 15/2001, by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Guwahati, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner.2. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner may, in brief, be described, thus: The plaintiff has been in possession of a plot of land measuring about 2. Kathas, described in Schedule A to the plaint, since 1968. The land measuring about 7 Lechas, described in Schedule B to the plaint, forms a part of the land of Schedule A. The land of the plaintiff and that of the defendant are located contiguous to each other and, while the plaintiff's land is a plot of government land, the land owned and possessed by the defendant is a patta land. By making false accusations against the plaintiff of his having made attempts to dispossess the defendant from the land of Schedule B, the defendant instituted a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and got, on 12.9.1997, the ...
Bipul Medhi Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 313/2001 is directed against, the Judgment and Order, dated 4.9.2001, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judeg, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 135(K)/1997 (GR Case No. 209/97), whereby the accused appellant Bipul Medhi was convicted under Section 417, IPC and sentenced to rigorous 'imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs, 1,000 in default further imprisonment for two months.2. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that accused Bipul Medhi developed some intimacy and friendship with Sewali Kalita and the affair continued for two-and-half years. The accused, thereafter, promised to marry Sewali and believing on the said plea, Sewali allowed the accused to have cohabitation with her and as of such cohabitation, she became pregnant. The victim also alleged rape, whereupon the accused was tried for commission of offence under Section 493/376, IPC. On conclusion of the, trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant as af...
Methoni Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Five identical demand notices, each dated June 21, 2001, issued under Section 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assam Act'), in respect of the assessment years in question, details of which will be noticed later, are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Another notice dated February 28, 2001, issued under Section 36(3) of the Assam Act proposing levy of penalty is a related aspect of the challenge made in the present writ application.2. The petitioner company which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea has assailed the aforesaid demand notices as well as the notice proposing to levy penalty on two principal grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the assessments under the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') following which the assessments under the Assam Act are required to be made, though finalised by the primary authority, appeals have been filed either by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »