Guwahati Court May 2007 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.
Prafulla Chandra Saikia Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-11-2007
Amitava Roy, J. 1. The petitioner seeks practical alleviation from his perceived administrative apathy through an appropriate writ securing his repatriation to the Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam, his parent department and promotion to the rank commensurate to his service entitlements. 2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. 3. The petitioner's version is that after his appointment as Assistant Surgeon-I with the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam, on 23/01/1973, he joined the said post. While he was posted as Medical and Health Officer-I at Bisturam Baruah State Dispensary in Jorhat, by notification No. HLA. 224/87/19 dated 10.04.1987 of the Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, his services were placed at the disposal of the Labour Department. Subsequent thereto, by notification dated 5.8.1987 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, La...
Tafizali and anr. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-2007
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Ali, learned Counsel representing the Appellant No. 1 as well as Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant No. 2 and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.2. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 109 (K)/96 whereby both the appellants Nos. 1 and 2, Md. Tafiz Ali and Ibrahim Ali respectively were convicted under Sections 366 (A)/34 IPC and 448 PC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 300/- respectively and in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month each. The Appellant No. 1, Tafiz Ali was also found guilty of offence of rape committed upon PW 2 and accordingly he was convicted under Section 376 and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years...
Md. JamiruddIn Ahmed Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-2007
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mrs. A. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant from the jail. Also Mr. P.C. Gayon, learned P.P., Assam.2. This Criminal Jail Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10-2-04 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 59(S-S)/2003 whereby the appellant was found to be guilty of commission of offence of rape upon the victim, prosecutrix, P.W. 4 and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years by convicting him under Section 376(2)(f), I.P.C.3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged on 24-10-02 by P.W. 1, the father of the victim, Md. Gyasuddin Ahmed with Sivasagar police station being registered as Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 401/ 2002 under the above mentioned Section alleging inter alia that his daughter P.W. 4 while going to School at about 9 a.m., on the same day, i.e. on 24-10-2002, she went to purchase 'Hajmola' from the stationary shop owned by the...
Shybun Lyngdoh Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer of coal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, having its registered office in the State of Meghalaya, and procures orders for supply of coal from various customers outside the northeastern region and, then, dispatches, in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, coal from Meghalaya to various other States like U. P., Punjab and others. The coal, which get sold to such customers in the States of U. P., Punjab, etc., are dispatched from Meghalaya by road up to the railway yard, at Jagiroad, for being further carried to its destination by railway for onward dispatch to other States, such as Punjab, Haryana, etc. The writ petitioner's grievance is that while making such sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, the petitioner pays necessary sales tax in the State of Meghalaya and also deposits necessary royalty, payable to the Directorate of Mineral Resources, Meghalaya, but respondent No. 3, namely, Superintenden...
Soleman Ali (Md.) Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-10-2007
Amitava Roy, J.1. The challenge projected is against the notifications dated 26.9.2000 appointing the respondent No. 3 as demonstrator at Swahid Jadav Nath Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, (hereafter referred to as the College) and terminating the petitioner's appointment thereto under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions), 1951, (hereafter referred to as the Regulations). The notice of the proceedings though served on the respondent No. 3, he has chosen not to contest the petitioner's assertions.2. I have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Rahman, learned State Counsel, for the official respondents.3. The petitioner claims to be a Diploma holder in Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery and thus qualified to be appointed in the post of Demonstrator in the College of Homeopathy. His pleaded case is that in November, 1993, he was appointed as a Demonstrator on honorary basis in the college. Ther...
All Manipur Aided Elementary Schools Unapproved Teacher's Association ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-08-2007
U.B. Saha, J.1. In view of the order passed in the connected misc case No. 3919 of 2006 renumbered as misc case No. 16 of 2007, the instant contempt petition is taken up for final disposal, as agreed to by the parties.2. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Kerani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajauddin, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 8 and 13. Mr. N.P.C. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Babloo, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. N. Kotiswar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.3. We have also heard Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur who appears on the request of this Court to assist us in view of the Order dated 07.06.2000 in the instant Contempt Petition. Mr. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent government did not comply with the Court's Order dated 03.09.1996 passed in CR No. 1047 of 19...
issa Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-08-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Should a person be denied grant of certificate enabling him to claim exemption from payment of duty of excise or additional duty of excise in respect of the supply of goods made by him to an international organization merely on the ground that he had not sought for grant of exemption certificate before making the supply, particularly, when it is not disputed that the supply, so made, is in terms of the notification, dated 28.08.2005, issued, in this regards, in respect of goods falling under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This is the moot question, which the present writ petition has raised.2. I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior counsel, for the' petitioner, and Mr. N. Bora, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.Before I deal with the issue raised for determination in this writ petition, let met take note of the admitted facts giving rise to this writ petition. These facts are, in brief, thus: Respondent No. 3, name...
Subrata Dutta and ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-08-2007
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This batch of 27 writ petitions, which are inter-linked and virtually involving the same parties, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. WP (C) Nos. 94 (SH) and 95 (SH) of 2005 were filed by 27 writ petitioners challenging the legality of the notice dated 7.3.2005 issued to each of them by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong (the respondent No. 2) Under Section 8 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulations) Act, 1971 ('the Regulations' for short) requiring them to show cause within 15 days as to why action should not be taken against them for possessing the lands described in the schedule therein without obtaining necessary permission under the provisions of the Regulations and the rules made there under.3. For proper appreciation of the controversies involved in all the writ petitions, the undisputed facts on record may be noticed at the very outset. The petitioner No. 1 in WP (C) No. 94 (SH) 2005 inherited with hi...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Durmesh Coal and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-04-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common Judgment and order, we propose to dispose of these nine writ appeals, namely, W.A. No. 183/2001, W.A. No. 184/2001, W.A. No. 185/2001, W.A. No. 186/2001, W.A. No. 187/2001, W.A. No. 188/2001, W.A. No. 189/2001, W.A. No. 191/2001, W.A. No. 193/2001, which have arisen out of the common Judgment and order, dated 07.05.2005, passed in WP(C) 5690/2000, WP(C) 5826/2000, WP(C) 6785/2000, WP(C) 7058/2000, WP(C) 7059/2000, WP(C) 7218/2000, WP(C) 1359/2000, WP(C) 1361/2001, WP(C) 1363/2001, and WP(C) 1495/2001 respectively.2. Before we come to the merit of these appeals, it is necessary to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present appeals. These facts are: W.P.(C) No. 6382/2001 (M/s N. Roy Coal Traders v. Union of India and Ors.), arose out of an application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's case being, in brief, thus: The petitioner transports coal within and outside the State and dispatches, duri...
Ganesh Electric Stores Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-04-2007
Amitava Roy, J.1. Apart from questioning the validity of Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Enlistment of Contractors Under CPWD, 2005 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Rules'), prescribing a banker's certificate from a scheduled bank for enlistment of a contractor with the Central Public Works Department (hereafter for short referred to as 'the CPWD') as well as for revalidation of such enlistment, the petitioner has assailed as well, in this proceeding, the letters dated 18.10.2006 and 30.10.2006, insisting on the compliance of the imperatives of paragraph 3.3(iii) of the Rules, as a condition precedent for such revalidation.2. I have heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. J.P. Sharma and Ms. S.A. Choudhury, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.3. The pleaded account of the relevant facts is indispensably essential to appropriately evaluate the rival contentions. The petitioner has introduced itself ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »