Guwahati Court September 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.
Rahmat Ali Barbhuiya Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2007(Annexure-'H' to the writ petition) issued by the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi District Circle (HDC), Hailakandi allowing the Respondent No. 5 to act as Assistant Head Master (Academic) without any financial benefit of the school namely, Jamira High School. The order has been issued in supersession of earlier order dated. 1.3.2006 (Annexure-'G' to the writ petition), by which the petitioner was allowed to act as Assistant Head Master (Academic) without any financial benefit.2. The petitioner, while was working as Assistant Teacher in Jamira M.E. School, was allowed to hold the current charge of the post of Headmaster of the School in his grade and scale of pay upon retirement of regular Headmaster of the School. It was stipulated in the order that holding of charge by the petitioner would be till posting of a regular Head-master or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The order was issued by the Dist...
Shankar Routh Vs. Soma Dutta
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Aftab Hussain Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta and Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.C. Biswas and Mr. P.J. Nath, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This matrimonial appeal has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 14.12.2004 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) No. 147/2003, where by the prayer of the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against his wife, the respondent herein by filing a petition under Sections 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') was rejected holding that both the grounds of 'desertion' and 'cruelty' so set out by the appellant for divorce against his wife, the respondent could not be proved by the petitioner/appellant herein.3. Impugning the Judgment & Order and also in support of the appeal, Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge misread and mi...
ismail Sk. and anr. Vs. Bani HussaIn and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 5.9.2006 passed by Shri A.C. Marak, learned Magistrate First Class, West Garo Hills, Tura in Misc. Case No. 36/2006. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has attached the disputed land purportedly in exercise of his power conferred under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly 'Cr.P.C.'). Being aggrieved with the order of attachment, the second party in the trial court has preferred this revision application.2. I have heard Shri A.S. Siddique, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.H. Hazarika, learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the impugned order.3. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the criminal proceeding as well as this revision application are that the petitioners are claiming the tile and possession over the disputed land by way of inheritance, whereas the respondents are claiming tile ...
Mrs. JesmIn Rahman Vs. Mrs. Afruza Begum and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This petition, made under Section 482, Cr. P.C. (in short, 'the Code'), has raised a very important question of law and the question is this : Is an order passed by an Executive Magistrate drawing proceeding, under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code, revisable? This question, in turn, brings us to yet another question and the question is : Whether an order, passed, under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, an interlocutory order?2. Before making endeavour to find answers to the questions posed above, appropriate it is that the facts leading to this petition are taken note of. The petitioner herein submitted, as first party, a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District, alleging, inter alia, thus : The petitioner is the lawful owner and possessor of the land described in the schedule to the said petition, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land.' The second party, who has no right, title or interest over the disputed lan...
Bhabanand Kakoti Vs. State of Meghalaya
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
A.P. Subba, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-8-2004 and 24-8-2004 respectively passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Shillong in FTC Case No. 33 of 2003 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to life imprisonment.2. Briefly staled, the prosecution case is as follows:On 5-12-96 an information was received at Madanryting PS to the effect that a fire had broken out at the quarters in occupation of the accused appellant. PW-1 who rushed to the spot along with the other police personnel to put out the fire found the deceased lying on the floor of the bedroom with burn injuries all over her body. Since she had sustained serious burn injuries in the incident she was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Shillong for medical care and attention. She was later removed to Ganesh Das Hospital where she made a dying declaration implicating her husband (accused appellant) before she succumbe...
Tara Nath Mahanta Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Jain, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 5.0 Inspite of service of notice thee is no representation on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures-M and N letters dated 06.06.06 and 17.06.06 by which he has been placed under suspension. Annexure-M letter was is sued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam directing the Principal/Secretary of the college in which the petitioner has been serving as Lecturer in the department of Philosophy to place the petitioner under suspension and to initiate departmental proceeding. By the said letter, further direction was issued to place the matter before the Governing Body of the college for the purpose of adopting specific resolution for taking further necessary action.3. Pur...
S.S. Khanna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Alleging supersession in the matter of promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant by the private respondents and in action on the part of the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the light of the relevant promotion rules and alleging illegal deprivation of his promotion, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 26.2.1999.2. I have heard Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.3. In nut shell, the case of the petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that he was appointed as Constable under Border Security Force (for short 'BSF') in the year, 1968 and during the course of his service period in consideration of satisfactory service, he was promoted upto the rank of Subedar Clark on 21.10.1991 the said post of Subedar Clerk is the feeder post for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant in BSF. While the petiti...
Thanglenngir Chiru and anr. Vs. Dy. Commissioner and Collector of Land ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 53 of 1998 rejecting the claim of the appellant for payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) for the pre-Section 4(1) notification period i.e. from 1981 to 6.11.1996.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that a large tract of lands measuring 48.47 acres situate within Charoi Khullen hill village belonging to the appellant No. 1 was occupied and used by the respondent No. 3 for construction of Magazine store at Leimatak Phase-V in the course of undertaking Loktak Hydro Electric Project in 1981. Initially, no land acquisition proceeding under the provisions of the Act was drawn up. However, the respondent No. l by his order dated 14.7.1982 purportedly made an award in favour of the appellant No. 1 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre fo...
Binod Beria Vs. Vishnu Sharma
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. P. Bora, learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party.2. The petitioner herein lodged a complaint case against the opposite party herein, who is a practicing Advocate and a member of Sibsagar Bar Association, the case of the petitioner being, in brief, as under:(i) The petitioner lodged a complaint with the President, Sibsagar Bar Association making allegations to the effect, inter alia, thus : An agreement for sale of a plot of land with house standing thereon was entered into between the petitioner and one Dr. Saurav Kumar Gogoi and as per agreement, advance amount was given by cheque, which was duly received by Dr. Saurav Kumar Gogoi and possession of the land was accordingly given to the petitioner. Alter taking possession of the land, the petitioner contacted the opposite party for preparing sale deeds and for doing other necessary official works. The opposite party had demanded Rs...
Usman Goni and ors. Vs. Abdul Khalique and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The petitioners, who are the defendant Nos. 1 to 12 in Title Suit No. 8/2005 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, by the present petition are challenging the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in the said suit allowing the prayer made by the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein in Petition No. 518/06 for rejecting the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 11 and returning the same, on the ground that such written statement was filed beyond 90 days of the date of service of summons as stipulated in under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC.2. I have heard Mr. 1. Uddin, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Mr. A. J. Atia, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that though application was filed under Section 115 read with Section 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »