Guwahati Court August 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.
Nirmal Debnath Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
U.B. Saha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the convict appellant challenging the judgment-dated 13.9.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 10(ST/B) of 1991 whereby and where under the appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 12 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. The fine money, if realized, was directed to pay to the victim. The period of detention during trial was set off.2. Heard Mr. D. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari reported in : 2004CriLJ4232 referring to the case of State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja reported in : 2004CriLJ579 , the name is not mentioned to disclose the identity of the victim girl against whom an offence un...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Upendra Chandra Sark ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Writ Petitioner.2. The challenge in the instant appeal is to a Judgment and order dated 09.08.2002 in Civil Rule No. 24 of 1993 where by the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent writ petitioner and directed the Appellant Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner for up gradation/promotion to Selection Grade Supervisor.3. The Respondent as Writ Petitioner had filed Civil Rule 24 of 1993 alleging that he has been denied Selection/Up gradation to the Selection Grade Supervisors by the Respondent ONGC on unacceptable grounds and on the basis of such contention, sought a direction for a declaration, declaring the Writ Petitioner to have been upgraded w.e.f. 01.01.1988 on which date the others similarly placed as the Writ Petitioner, have ...
Tina Khongjee Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
A.P. Subba, J.1. This petition filed by one Mrs. Tina Khongjee, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the detention of her husband Shri Mayborn Rapthap, under Section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the detenu was lodged in jail having been arrested in connection with some criminal cases involving non-bailable offences. As he was taken ill during his confinement in the judicial custody, he was removed to Civil Hospital, Shillong, on 4.5.2007 for better medical are and attention. When he was thus admitted in hospital, he was served with detention order on 7th May 2007 followed by the grounds of his detention on the next following day i.e. 8.5.2007. However, no material documents and particulars relied on by the authority while passing the detention order were supplied to him alongwith the detention order. The detenu was merely supplied with the c...
In Re: Government of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. While hearing the WP (C) No. 1175/06, on 15.6.07, this court was troubled to take note of an allegation that a Sessions case No. 38/03 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Golaghat, wherein the accused, a police officer, was charged with the offence Under Section 302 IPC, was still pending. It was brought to the notice of this court that the offence took place on 20.8.99. If the allegations made in the writ petition are to be true, the process of law took eight long years without bearing any fruit. After passing an appropriate order in the said writ petition on the above mentioned date, one of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice) thought it fit to verify on the administrative side as to why the said Sessions Case was pending for such a long time, more particularly, in the background of the fact that the accused is a police officer and the offence is alleged to have taken place in a Cinema Hall where hundreds of people were present. It was informed by the Registry a coup...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Major V.P. Najhawan
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
T. Nandkumar Singh, J.1. This appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Act 1996) is directed against the Judgment dated 27.2.2006 passed by the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati rejecting Misc. (Arb) Case No. 576 of 2003 filed by the present appellant Under Section 34 of the Act 1996 against the arbitral award dated 15.9.2003 in Contract Agreement No. S&T;/CON/91/4 dated 4.3.1992.2. Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss B. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. A short fact in a nutshell which would be sufficient for deciding the present appeal is that the respondent Major V.P. Najhawan (Retd.) had entered into a contract agreement being No. S&T;/CON/91/4 dated 4.3.1992 with the present appellant for executing a contract work for the present appellant by the respondent. The relevant portion of the said contract agre...
Sukesh Das Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. P. Kataky, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned P.P., Assam.2. The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months so imposed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar by his judgment and order dated 20.9.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 11/99 is the subject matter of challenge in this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant from the jail.3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.3.97 one Khil Pasmon Khasia was returning from Amarghat Market at about 9 p.m. There was a hue and cry at a place situated by the side of Kalakhal Bridge. On hearing the hue and cry, the nearby people rushed to the said place and found Khil Pasmon Khasia lying on the ground with multiple injuries upon his person. On the following morning he was removed to Silchar Medical College Hospital where ...
Sanjib Tanti Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned Amicus Curiae and also Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned P.P., Assam.2. This appeal from jail has been carried from the judgment and order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 7(T)/98 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further imprisonment for three months, for committing the offence of murder by beheading three persons namely, Birsa Bhumij, Montu Lohar and Upen Tanti and he was also sentenced to R.I. for five years having been convicted under Section 307 IPC for injuring three other persons namely, Sakirtun Tanti, Manik Bhumij and Smt. Amrit Kishan, ordering to run both the sentences concurrently.3. Before delving upon in details the issues raised in the challenge of conviction and sentence so handed down by the learned Judge to the accused/appellant, it would be ...
State of Assam Vs. Anupam Das
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 71(K)/2000 is found guilty of offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati by judgment dated 14.11.2006. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to award capital punishment to the accused obviously for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Sessions Judge did not record to have awarded any punishment insofar as the charge under Section 201 IPC is concerned, though the accused is also found guilty of the said offence. For the sake of completion of the narration of facts, it is to be mentioned here that though the accused was also charged and tried under Section 377 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge did not record a finding of guilt.2. In view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge chose to award the capital punishment, the matter is placed before this Court for confirmation of the punishment as required under Section 366 CrP...
Nameirakpam Inaotomba Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
U.B. Saha, J.1. Heard Mr. M.I. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Addl. G.A. for the State respondents-2 to 3 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1.2. This is an application filed by the petitioner the brother of detenu, namely, Nameirakpam Gandhi Singh @ Robindro @ Inaocha @ Pakhanglakpa of Nambol Kongkham Awang Leikai, Bishnupur District, challenging the legality of the detention of the detenu, who has been detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West in exercise of his power under Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as the Act) issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 15.9.2006 (Annexurc-A/1) while the aforesaid detenu was in police custody in connection with FIR No. 202(9)/06 Under Section 17/20 UA(P)A Act, 25(-1-B) Act 5, as the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in near future.3. State ...
Laishram Surbala Devi Vs. M.A. Sattar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
U.B. Saha, J.1. Heard Mr. Paonam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gunindro, learned Counsel for the respondents/alleged contemnors.2. The instant contempt petition is filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for their willful violation and deliberate disobedience of order of this Court dated 5.8.1999 passed in CR No. 833 of 1993 wherein this Court disposed the said C.R. No. 833 of 1993 with the direction that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her service in the light of the order dated 25.1.91 issued by the Commissioner (Edn), Govt. of Manipur within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents in the said CR No. 833 of 93 contested the case by filing counter affidavit. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court made direction to the respondents as stated hereinabove.3. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition i.e. CR No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »