Guwahati Court July 2007 Judgments

Management, Pabhojan Tea Estate Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR624]

I.A. Ansari, J.1. Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4. Heard also Ms. V.L. Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.2. The relevant facts, which have given rise to the present revision, are, in brief, thus. The respondent No. 4, while working as a clerk in Pabhojan Tea Estate, was dismissed from service with effect from 16.6.1981. On a dispute having been raised by the union, which represented the respondent No. 4 as workman, a reference was made to the Labour Court of Assam at Dibrugarh for decision by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This reference gave rise to Reference Case No. 04/1982. The Labour Court delivered its award on 24.6.1987, whereby it held the workman not guilty of the charge and directed his reinstatement. On his reinstatement, the workman did not, however, rejoin his servi...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Jatan Roy and anr.

Court: Guwahati

T. Vaiphei, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, the learned Counsel for the petitioner insurance company and Mr. K. Khan, the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite due service of notice upon him.2. The legality of the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong in M.A.C. No. 32 of 2005 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) to contest the claim petition on any grounds available to the owner of the offending vehicle, is called into question in this revision. The facts materials for disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for compensation on the account of the death of his son, who died in a vehicular accident. Both the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company were arrayed as the opposite parties in the case, who accordingly contested...

Muni Devi Vs. Kameshwar Roy and anr.

Court: Guwahati

T. Vaiphei, J.1. I have heard Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents despite due service of notice upon them.2. The appeal questions the legality of the judgment and decree dated 17.5.2006 and 17.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Divorce Suit No. 8(T) of 1996 decreeing the dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent and the payment of maintenance allowances of Rs. 2000/- per month by the respondent No. 1 to the appellant herein with effect from 1.6.2006 till her death or the marriage of the girl child, whichever was later.3. The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant is the wife of the respondent No. 1 and that their marriage was solemnized on 20.2.1989 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Goralane, Bihari Colony, Shillong. Two children were born to them on 30.4.1994 and on 27.2.1997. The first bor...

North East Paper and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Assam and o ...

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. All the writ petitions, being interrelated have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In the first two writ petitions, filed by one and the same writ petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. While in the first writ petition, the grievance raised is in respect of implementation of the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) and the lease deed entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 company owned by the Government of Assam, in the second writ petition the grievance raised is in respect of refusal on the part of the respondent No. 4 bank to provide working capital. The third writ petition has been filed by employees association of the respondent No. 2 company for a direction to the respondents to provide the employees with the service benefits and to take steps for revival and functioning of the company.3. The writ petitions are based on the follo...

Sanjib Kr. Mudoi Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel along with Ms. S. Borah.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet issued to him under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The charge sheet was issued on 17.02.04 (Annexure-G). At the time of issuance of the charge sheet, the petitioner was serving as Junior Engineer under the respondents at Jorhat. He was placed under suspension by order dated 28.08.03 pending drawl of the departmental proceeding.3. The petitioner was to submit his written statement in defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the same. He was also provided with an opportunity to inspect the documents. In fact, the petitioner as per the statement made in paragraph-8 of the writ petition intended to inspect the documents connected with the enquiry. He had addressed Annexure-H letter dated 05.03.04 in response to the charge s...

Workman of Shree Sibbari Tea Estate Vs. Management of Shree Sibbari Te ...

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. The Labour Court award upholding the decision of the Management to terminate the services of the workman is the challeznge made in this writ petition by the Labour Union representing the workman.2. The petitioner in the name and style 'Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha', Nazira Circle in the district of Sibsagar is a registered Trade Union under Trade Union Act, 1926. Its workman Sri S.N. Choubey was its Unit Secretary at the relevant point of time. According to the petitioner, the Management of the Tea Estate, namely Sibbari Tea Estate, has victimized the said workman for his union activities. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to the certain demands made by the petitioner through the said workman on 24.4.1996.3. By Annexure-1 letter dated 13.8.1996, the said workman was charged with the Annexure-1-A charges reproduced below:ToRespected Manager,Shree Sibbari Tea EstateSir,In reference to your letter dated 24.7.96, I had forwarded my letter that which I would...

P. Kumar and Associates Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J. 1. While in the first writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the particular tender notice initiated and processed, in the second writ petition, the challenge made is the fresh tender process initiated by the authority, upon cancellation of the earlier one. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In the first writ petition, the petitioner has described itself as a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but in the second writ petition it has described itself as a proprietorship concern. 3. The petitioner, in response to the notice inviting tender (NIT), from resourceful persons, firms and companies, for operating a consignment agency yard at Guwahatisubmitted its tender. The scope of the work involved transportation, handlingand storage of iron and steel materials and the tenure of the contract was for ...

Chandra Mohan Shukla Vs. State of Assam and anr.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can an Army authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950, seek, for the purpose of investigation or trial, the custody of a person, who is subject to the Army Act, but in the custody of a criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is triable under the Army Act too, if the case, in connection with which the person is in custody, is under investigation by police or under an inquiry as contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? When a case lodged against a person, who is subject to the Army Act, 1950. is still pending for investigation by the police, whether it is permissible for a Court of ordinary criminal justice to hand over to the Army authorities, mentioned in Section 125 of the Army Act, the custody of the person, who is subject to the Army Act, but is in custody of the ordinary criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is also punishable under the Army Act, 1950,...

Kapil Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

U.B. Saha, J.1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher of Abhoynagar N.S. Vidyalaya, Sadar, Challenging the order of transfer dated 8.5.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, the respondent No. 2 herein, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was transferred from Abhoynagar N.S. Vidyalaya, Sadar to Kulai Col High School under Inspectorate of Kamalpur, under Dhalai District, on the ground that he is working in the said school as an Assistant Teacher (NCC Trained) and an NCC commissioned officer and that he trained a number of NCC cadets in the school as well as at the state level and national level, but the school where he has been transferred, he has no scope to discharge such duties of an N.C.C commissioned officer as in the said school i.e., Kulai Col High School, there is no unit of N.C.C.2. Heard Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.D. Majumder as w...

Superintendent of Police, Cbi Vs. S.P. Singh and ors.

Court: Guwahati

M.B.K. Singh, J.1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the legality of the order dated 4.8.06 passed by Shri L.K. Achumi, Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland in Case No. R.C. 2/99. The learned Special Judge vide impugned order discharged the present respondents 1 to 4 under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 at the stage of charge consideration in respect of the above said case, wherein there are allegations of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 as against the present respondents 1 to 4 and others.2. I have heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Mr. Kumar Parimal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.3. This is the third time that the question of legality of discharging the above said respondents in respect of the above said case at the stage of charge consideration is brought before this Co...