Guwahati Court January 2008 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.
Anonda Chandra Saikia Vs. Madhu Ram Saikia
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. By this Second Appeal the appellant/plaintiff is assailing the concurrent finding of the facts by the learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court that the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant are the joint purchasers of the suit land under the Registered Sale Deed dated 3.4.75 (Ext.3) from one Smti Smiya Donye Nara at a considerable amount of Rs. 4000/- (Four thousand) only and accordingly the appellant/plaintiff is not the sole owner of the suit land.2. The substantial questions of law formulated for decision in the present Second Appeal are:(1) Whether the proof of oral agreement between the parties of one side of an instrument is barred under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?(2) Whether the decree declaring right, title and interest of the defendant can be passed without a counter claim and on the basis of the revenue records?(3) Whether the judgment and the decree of the lower appellate court is inconformity with the provision of order ...
Nitoli and ors. Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The moot question, raised in the present writ petition, is this: In the absence of any provision, in the relevant recruitment rules, for absorption of contractual or ad-hoc employee in a given cadre and/or in the absence of any provision, in the relevant recruitment rules, for relaxation of the conditions of recruitment, is it possible to absorb and/or regularize the service of an ad-hoc or contractual employee, particularly, when the conditions of recruitment are governed, in the given case, by the recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India? Yet another question of immense importance, raised in the present writ petition, is this: whether an employee, who has been absorbed in a cadre contrary to the relevant recruitment rules, can be allowed to become senior to a regularly recruited person in the same cadre?2. Before I endeavour to answer the questions posed above, the undisputed material facts, which have given rise to the...
Samsul Haque Borbhuiya (D) by Lrs. Vs. Md. Ibrahim Ali Borbhuiya and o ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The legal heirs of defendant No. 1 and the defendant Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 18, 21 to 34, 34(a), 34(g), 35 to 38. and 19 other proforma defendants in Title Suit No. 13/1997 have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree both dated 7-4-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hailakandi in the aforementioned suit de- daring the joint title of the plaintiffs (the original respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the appeal) over the land measuring 32 Bigha 7 Katha 14 Chatak 9 Gonda 12 Kora 1 Kranti, described in Schedule 1 by partition of the said land by maintaining possession of the plaintiffs over the land described in Schedules 2 to 5 and drawing a preliminary decree for allotment of a separate share of the said land without reference to the Revenue Department and, thereafter, for preparation of the separate share.2. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 6 and Mustt. Rukia begum (whose name has been struck off from the l...
State of Tripura and ors. Vs. Dulali Rani Dutta
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 436 of 1997 whereby the prayer of the writ-petitioner, respondent herein, for being considered as an Assistant Teacher (Primary) in a Government School in handicapped quota on the ground of discrimination and unfair treatment in reference to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was allowed with a direction that the State Authorities are to consider the case of the writ-petitioner for appointment to the post earmarked for the physically handicapped category persons in terms of the notifications dated 15.2.1996 and 16.2.1996 issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura. As directed by learned Single Judge the performance o...
M.C. Journey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
K. Meruno, J.1. Heard Ms. Bisheswori, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC appearing for all the respondents.2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Sepoy in the 2nd Naga Regiment on 21.1.1987 and given regimental No. 14702372. That while the petitioner was discharging his duty dutifully and faithfully without any stigma, he was issued the impugned movement order dated 5.7.2000 issued by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner also states that he was also served in the Kargil War and received serious bullet injuries and after having fully recovered from the said bullet injuries he joined back to his posting place. Thereafter, he was found to be suffering from ulcer, as a result, he was evacuated to 92 Base Army Hospital at Srinagar for further treatment. After undergoing medical treatment for 15 days, sometimes in the month of June/July, 2000 the concerned Doctors issued discharge certificate and advised hi...
Mahamaya Agencies Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
U.B. Saha, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee, a registered dealer for selling motor vehicle parts/component of motor vehicles including 'bearing', for cancelling/quashing and/or setting aside the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, the respondent No. 3 herein, vide his communications dated May 15, 2006, June 20, 2006 and 20/26 October, 2006, annexures C, E and G, respectively, to the writ petition along with interim prayer for staying the aforesaid impugned decisions till disposal of the writ petition.2. Heard Mr. S. C. Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. C. Pal, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. D. C. Nath, learned Counsel for the State respondents.Considering the points involved in the instant writ petition, on January 3, 2008, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the State respondents was allowed time to obtain necessary instructions so that the entire matter can be disposed of at this stage when...
Manju Mazumdar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-04-2008
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India, who represents the respondents.2. The present petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who is the mother of late Ashim Mazumder, who was serving as a rifleman in the Assam Rifles, a Para-military force under the Central Government. The prayer made in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 29.7.1998 (Annexure 11), whereby it is declared that the claim for pensionary benefits are not admissible as the son of the petitioner was declared a deserter and his service stood automatically terminated. Further direction is sought to provide family pensionary does to the writ petitioner, as the mother of the deceased rifleman Ashim Mazumdar.3. The rifleman son of the petitioner joined service on 30.04.1987. He was sanctioned leave by the Commandant of 17th Battalion of Assam Rifles for 60 days with effect from 23.7.1991 to 20.9.19...
Brojendra Kr. Deb. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Amitava Roy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the proposed recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,214/- from his salary for the month of May, 2006 and for the unexplained delay in finalizing his pensionary benefits, the petitioner is before this Court seeking redress. By order dated 15.6.2007 this Court while issuing notice injuncted the recovery as contemplated by the impugned letter dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure-20 to the writ petition).2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Borbhuiyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing counsel, Education Department.3. The affidavit on behalf of the respondents through the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, respondent No.2, having been filed and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage.4. The pleaded case of the petitioner in short is that, while he had been serving as the Headmaster of Dudpatil MV school in Cachar District (hereinafter referred to as the 'School'), on 29...
Usha Mandal Vs. Jitendra Nath Dutta and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. R.K. Agarwala, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant as well as Mr. M.J. Baruah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.8.1999 and subsequent order dated 22.11.1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri in MACT No. 95/97. By this appeal, the appellant-claimant is claiming for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount under the impugned judgment and award on three (3) grounds--1. Interest should have been awarded from the date of filing the claim application but not from the date of award.2. Learned Claims Tribunal had not used the correct multiplier inasmuch as the evidence on record show that age of the victim was 50 years and as such correct multiplier would be 13.3. The finding of the learned...
Phanindra Kr. Medhi Vs. Umesh Ch. Barman
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The opposite party as plaintiff, filed Title Suit No. 56/2005 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 3 (now Munsiff) at Guwahati, against the petitioner as defendant, praying for a decree for declaration that the suit land is the approach path of the plaintiff from VIP road to his plot of land, that he got the right to use the suit land as his approach path, that the obstructions/blockade put by the defendant on the suit land to prevent the plaintiff from using the same as his approach path, is illegal and liable to be removed, for a decree of mandatory injunction for removal of all obstruction/blockade in the suit land as well as for permanent injunction contending inter alia that the plaintiff and two others namely, Sri Naba Kr. Kalita and Sri Bhubaneswar Kalita, purchased total land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 341 of K.P. Patta No. 53 of village No. 1, Mathgharia, under Beltola Mouza, by a registered deed of sale da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »