Guwahati Court September 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.
Pramath Ch. Sarma Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondent No. 4, who is the writ petitioner in the said writ petition, setting aside the order of transfer dated 27.1.2006 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries & Commerce department transferring the present appellant from Silchar to Guwahati as Functional Manager, DICC, in place of the present respondent No. 4, on the ground of the violation of the transfer guideline issued vide office memorandum dated 4.2.2002 by the Government, in so far as it relates to not spelling out the grounds and reasons of such transfer as well as for not taking the approval of the hon'ble Chief Minister.2. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is that the appellant who was working as Functional Manager, DICC, Cacher at Silchar was transferred in the interest of public service v...
Atul Chandra BuragohaIn Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Whether a judicial magistrate can direct investigation or further investigation to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (commonly known as 'CBI') This is the principal question, which has been raised for determination in the present revision. This question, in turn, brings me to a basic question, the basic question being as to whether it is permissible at all for a judicial, magistrate to direct the police to make further investigation into a case, wherein, on completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet ?2. I have heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. P. Bora, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.3. Before I deal with the questions, which have arisen in the present revision, let me point out the material facts, which have given rise to the present revision. Upon investigation into the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1/2000 under Section 409. Upon investigation into the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1/2000 under S...
Keshab Kalita and ors. Vs. Thanu Ram Kalita and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Having been suffered with a decree passed by the learned trial court in T.S. No. 1/96 and having lost in the first appellate court in T.A. No. 2/98, the defendants/appellants has filed this Second Appeal.2. I have heard Mr H. Deka, learned Senior counsel for the appellants/ defendants and Mr. A. M. Buzarbarua, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents.3. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted the T.S. No. 1/96 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Mangaldoi against the appellants/defendants praying for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs title and possession over the land under Schedule Ka (2) and Kha (2) land, recovery of khas possession of the Schedule Ka (2) and Kha (2) land by evicting the defendants therefrom and for permanent injunction with other reliefs.4. In order to get the aforesaid decree the plaintiffs in their plaint, inter alia, pleaded that they are the owners in possession in respect of the schedule land and on 28....
Management of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. An affirmative answer of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar on an application filed by the workman under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has prompted the present approach of the petitioner-employer under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts in brief may be noted at the outset.The respondent No. 2 herein who was, at the relevant point of time, working in the post of Supervisor Grade-II in the Cachar Paper Mill of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. was dismissed by the management by an order dated 11.10.1998. As there was already an industrial dispute involving the respondent pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar ; the management filed an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the learned Tribunal below seeking approval of the dismissal order passed by it. Misc. Case No. 14/1988 was registered on the basis of the application filed by the management...
Mahesh Doley and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. These three writ appeals are directed against the same judgment and order dated 24.9.2002 made in WP(C) No. 2490/02 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court.2. The matter arises under the provisions of Missing Autonomous Council Act, 1995 and Missing Autonomous Council (Amendment) Act, 1997.3. The appellant in WA No. 530/02 challenged the Notification dated 11th April, 2002 issued in the name of the Governor reconstituting the Interim Missing Autonomous General Council and Missing Autonomous Executive Council by replacing the earlier interim General Council and Interim Executive Council constituted vide Notification dated 29th July, 1998.4. The learned Single Judge found that the nominated persons to the General Council or the Executive Council, as the case may be, hold office during pleasure of the State Government. The nomination, if made, on the basis of political considerations, there will be no violation of law if such members are removed or repla...
Mustt. Beula Khatun Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition come up for motion hearing on 4.9.2006 and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court remembered filing of another writ petition on the same set of facts. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner on being asked as to whether another writ petition was filed on the same cause of action, admitted of having done so. However, he could not provide the particulars of the writ petition and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 6.9.2006 enabling him to furnish the particulars.2. On 6.9.2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner furnished the particulars of the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 6403/2004, disposed of on 7.9.2004. With such information, the matter was ordered to be listed alongwith the said writ petition and this is how, the matter is before this Court for motion hearing alongwith the said writ petition.3. To avoid repetition of the facts involved in both the writ petitions, the order passed in the earlier w...
Nagen Barthakur Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petition has yet attempted to salvage his grievance by resorting to the appellate jurisdiction of this court challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7060/2005.2. We have heard Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned senior advocate for the appellant, Mr. G.N. Sahewala, learned senior advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. B. Goyal, learned GA, Assam.3. The necessary facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was elected as the President of Dibrugarh Zilla Parishad and his term of office was continued from 29.5.2005. While the appellant was holding the said office, on 15.9.2005,16 members of the Zilla Parishad out of total 23 directly elected members raised a No Confidence Motion against the appellant in exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Assam Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, expressing their no confidence against the appellant as President of the Dibrugarh Zilla Parishad. On th...
TajuddIn Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 24.06.2002 passed by the learned Session Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Appeal No. 9(1) of 1999 dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction dated 15.02.99 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Karimganj in C.R. Case No. 1489 of 1997 convicting the revision petitioner under Section 417 IPC and sentencing him to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months and further directing that the fine, if realized, shall be paid to the victim girl as compensation under Section 357(3) to the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The complainant i.e. the victim girl filed the complaint petition being C.R. Case No. 1489 of 1997 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, alleging that the accused/ revision petitioner who is her...
Mukul Saikia and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The appellants who are writ petitioners WP(C) No. 2026 of 2001, 2036 of 2001 and 4932 of 2001, by present appeals have challenged the common judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a batch of writ petitions including the present concerned writ petitions.2. The Writ Petition No. 2026 of 2001 as well as 2036 of 2001 have been filed by the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 8 of 2005 praying for a direction to the State respondents to fill up 27 posts of Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O)/probation officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.8.1997 and also to fill up all anticipated vacancies that had arisen on or after the date of advertisement till the completion of selection process from amongst the candidates whose names appeared in the select list dated 17.7.2000. The Writ Petition(C) No. 4932 of 2001 has been filed by the appellants in W.A. No. 471 of 2003 challenging the Cabinet memorandum dated 16.6.2000 circulat...
Sushil Kumar Agarwalla and anr. Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioners, while admitting at least the liability of the repayment of the principal amount of loan amounting to Rs. 1,17,06,398.69 payable to the respondent-bank, and disputing the interest charged to the tune of Rs. 35,51,556.95 have challenged the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) on the following grounds:1. The Act does not apply to the case as per provisions of Section 31(i) of the Act, the security interest created being agricultural land.2. Not following the pre-requirement of dealing with the objection raised in respect of the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the Act.3. The respondent-bank could not have included the amount relating to interest in the demand made by the impugned notice, inasmuch as the Bakijai Officer of the Co-operative Societies has already held the same to be not recoverable.4. The bank alread...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »