Guwahati Court January 2007 Judgments

Smt. Maya Rani Ghosh Etc. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can a claim for compensation, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, (in short, 'the Act of 1855') be made by making a mere application, in the Court of District Judge, within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of 'action' has arisen or whether such a claim for compensation has to be made by instituting a 'suit' in a Court of competent jurisdiction or is the person, claiming compensation, in such a case, has the option of either making an application, in the Court of District Judge, seeking compensation or instituting an appropriate 'suit' in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction? Is there any distinction between a 'suit' and an 'action' or whether the words, 'suit' and 'action', are two interchangeable words? Where lies the origin of 'suit' or 'action'? Is the English legal system of the Courts of 'common law' and the 'Courts of equity' has any bearing on the enactment of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, and if so, what is the effect thereof? By following a syst...

Anup Nath and ors. Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

H. Barua, J.1. The appellants stood charged under Sections 120 (B), 364,302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Purna Kanta Nath on 30th of November, 1992. All the three appellants were tried by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mongaldoi and at the conclusion of the trial, three appellants were convicted under Sections 302/201/120 (B) read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded sentence as under:(i) Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/ - to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine R.I. for one year each under Sections 302/34 IPC;(ii) Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- to each of the appellants and in default of fine, R.I. for six month under Sections 120(B)/34 IPC; and(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for six month under Sections 201/34 IPC.2. Being highly aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction an...

Deputy Commissioner-cum-district Magistrate Vs. District Consumer Foru ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2007Gau94

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Darrang, Mangaldoi in CPA No. 3(DM-2) 99 by which an award to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- was granted in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 2 due to his sufferance for the damage caused to the vehicle owned by him having been requisitioned by the Govt. of Assam through the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang for transporting the under trials from the District Jail, Mangaldoi to Guwahati for medical treatment when the vehicle involved in an vehicular accident that took place at Changsari, on 15-8-1998 and when the same vehicle was immediately released on the next day i.e. 16-8-1998. at 4.00 p.m. to the claimant/owner in damaged condition.3. Being aggrieved by the damage caused to his vehicle, the claimant/respondent No. 2 approached the District Consumer Forum, Mangaldoi (for short 'the Forum') seeking relief under Section ...

Deputy Commissioner-cum-district Magistrate Vs. District Consumer Foru ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR2007Gau94

ORDERA.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Darrang, Mangaldoi in CPA No. 3(DM-2) 99 by which an award to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- was granted in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 2 due to his sufferance for the damage caused to the vehicle owned by him having been requisitioned by the Govt. of Assam through the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang for transporting the under trials from the District Jail, Mangaldoi to Guwahati for medical treatment when the vehicle involved in an vehicular accident that took place at Changsari, on 15-8-1998 and when the same vehicle was immediately released on the next day i.e. 16-8-1998. at 4.00 p.m. to the claimant/owner in damaged condition.3. Being aggrieved by the damage caused to his vehicle, the claimant/respondent No. 2 approached the District Consumer Forum, Mangaldoi (for short 'the Forum') seeking r...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Santi Construction and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. By means of this application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Bank has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the trial Court firstly refusing to grant adjournment in respect of hearing of the particular suit and secondly, dismissing the suit upon expunction of evidence of particular witness.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the instant applications are as follows:The respondents No. 1 to 4, of which the Respondent No. 1 is the partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 with the Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as partners were sanctioned with a credit facility in the nature of cash-credit facility (Supply Bill) account by the petitioner-Bank to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the letter of sanction dated 23.09.1986. The respondents availed the credit facility by executing various loan documents on 27.09.1986 in favour of the petitioner-Bank and...

Nikhilesh Das Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Mutum B.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. S.Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Somik Deb and Mr. P. Dutta, learned Counsels appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.2. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Government Degree College for Commerce stream and their appointments as illegal, violative of the legal right of the petitioner and also prayed for directing the official respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce stream.3. That, the petitioner, a post graduate degree holder in Commerce, belongs to the Scheduled Caste...

Rejia Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. Both the writ petitioners, declared as foreigners and illegal migrants to India (Assam) by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court questioning the concurrent findings. Both the writ petitions being similar in nature involving the similar circumstances, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.FACTS IN W.P.(C) No. 5280/062. The petitioner claims to be the wife of one Md. Jabbor Ali and daughter of one Ajimuddin Sheikh @ Ujnuddin of Village Nagagota, Simlitola under P.S. Simlitola and P.S. Matia in the District of Goalpara (Assam). On a reference being made suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant to India by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara registered a case being 319(G)/88 in Illegal Migrant (Determination) Tribunal, Goalpara (Goalpara District Case No. 1039/86) was registered. Upon issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the petitioner responded to the same...

State of Tripura and ors. Vs. Pramode Debbarma and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Both the writ appeals having been carried from the common judgment and order dated January 16,2001 rendered by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 276/1995 and Civil Rule No. 278/1995 based on common question of law structured on exactly identical factual premises have been taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The basic issue raised in both the writ petitions is as to whether the Chief Inspector under the Factories Act, 1948 (for short, the Act) is empowered under Section 65 of the Act to make exemption from the application of provision of Section 59 of the Act though the exemption under such Section has not been prescribed under Section 65(2) of the Act.3.The brief facts which have been narrated in both the writ petitions precisely are that all the writ petitioners-respondents herein being entitled to get extra wages for over time in terms: of Section 59 of the Act have bee...

State of Tripura and anr. Vs. Ranjit Kumar Debnath and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the State-Appellants as well as Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India/pro forma Respondents.2. This First Appeal has been carried from the judgment and decree dated 21 -9-2001 and dated 25-9-2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) South Tripura, Udaipur in Money Suit No. 2 of 1996.3. The Respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid money suit for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.00 (Rupees ten lakhs) with interest thereon for damages caused to him by way of illegal seizure of saleable cloths etc., damages to his shop and business, mental and physical sufferance, harassment and lowering his image and dignity in the society. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the respondent-plaintiff pleaded that whil...

Manipur Human Rights Commission Vs. State of Manipur and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T.N.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned GA for respondent nos. 1 and 2.2. The core question involved in the present writ petition is; whether the Human Rights Commission can file the present Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to discharge their duties contemplated in Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.3. The short facts which will suffice for deciding the core question formulated above are that: 'The Manipur Human Rights Commission' was constituted by the State Government of Manipur in exercising the power conferred by Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. By virtue of Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provisions of Sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 shall also be applicable to the State Hum...