Guwahati Court February 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.
Romoni Kr. Chakma and ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. All the writ petitions pertain to eviction notices issued against the petitioners who are the Chakma refugees who had come from Chittagong Hill tracts of erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Since the writ petitions are based on more or less same set of facts and the issue raised is also the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. As per the statements made in the writ petitions, the petitioners are the Chakma refugees who came to India as refugees from the erstwhile East Pakistan. It is their case that after their initial shelter in different places in India, eventually they were rehabilitated in the then North East Frontier Agency (NEFA), now Arunachal Pradesh. They have also mentioned about Miao refugee camp in which they took shelter in the year 1964.3. Further statements made in the writ petition is that as per the request made by various departments of the State, they started plantation in different...
Nityananda Dutta Vs. Anisul Haque and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The defendant No. 2, Sri Nityananda Dutta, in Title Suit No. 13/2003 filed by Md. Anisul Haque, the opposite party/landlord, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Jorhat, (now Munsiff) praying for. his ejectment along with two other persons, namely Sri Rohini Dutta and Sri Ramen Dutta, from the suit house on the ground of default in payment of the monthly rent and also for the violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jorhat (now Civil Judge) in Title Appeal No. 4/2005, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 herein, was decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1, Jorhat (now Munsiff) in the said suit.2. The opposite party No. 1 herein as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 13/2003 under the provisions of the Assam Urban A...
NalIn Borah Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Both the writ petitions by and between the same parties being interrelated to each other have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The dispute relates to date of birth of the petitioner. The first writ petition being WP(C) No. 7871/2003 was filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.11.2001 and to quash the Annexure-5 letter dated 10.3.2003 by which the Block Elementary Education Officer (respondent No. 5) intimated the petitioner that his salary was held up as per the order of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The second writ petition being WP(C) No. 9343/2003 was filed by the petitioner making a grievance against the An-nexure-1 order dated 29.10.2003 by which the Block Elementary Education Officer directed the petitioner to hand over charge of Headmaster of the school in which he had been working, upon his release from service with immediate effect.3. The pe...
Ranabir Bhowmik Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
P.K. Musahary, J.1. The accused petitioner being convicted under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in C.R. 388 of 2001 preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The said criminal appeal No. 47(3)/2001 was dismissed by the judgment dated 8.8.2002. Being aggrieved, the instant criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 6.7.01 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura and also the judgment dated 8.8.02 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P. In-charge for the respondent.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.2.2001, at around 6.30 a.m., while the complainant, Sri Bul Bul Das, Forester being accompanied by other staff of the Forest Department was on circu...
Dipak Pal Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
P.K. Musahary, J.1. Heard Sri S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned P. P. In-charge appearing for the respondent.2. The petitioner having been convicted under Section 468 IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for further six months and also having been convicted under Section 473 IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for further six months by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Khowai in G.R. 210 of 1996 preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 13(3)/ 2002 and dismissed on contest by a judgment delivered on 12.9.2002. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court below, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition for setting aside the afo...
Ajoy Chakravorty Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Both the writ petitions, by and between the same parties, are inter-related and accordingly, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In the first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5159/1999, the petitioner, a pleader's clerk, is aggrieved by the order, placing his license under suspension. In the second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3393/2006, his grievance is in respect of the order declaring him as a 'Tout'.3. The petitioner obtained the license to act as a pleader's clerk way-back in 1983. While he was working as such on the basis of the said license, renewed from time to time, he was issued with a notice asking him to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Margherita on 22.03.1999 in respect of a complaint lodged by one Prasanta Das. The enquiry was conducted and by order dated 23.09.1999 passed by the SDJM, the license of the petitioner was suspended as the allegation against him was found to...
Bamgaon Matshyajbi Self Help Group and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. I have heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4799/2007, and Ms. B.L. Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, in WP(C) No. 4799/2007, WP(C) No. 5835/2006, WP(C) No. 5680/2007 and WP(C) No. 7203/2005. I have also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondent, i.e. respondent No. 4, in WP(C) No. 4799/2007, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5835/2006, WP(C) No. 5680/2007 and WP(C)No. 7203/2005.2. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of all the four writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 4799/2007, WP(C) No. 5835/2006, WP(C) No. 5680/2007 and WP(C) No. 7203/2005, for, all these writpetitions are closely inter-linked and have, therefore, been, as sought for by the learned Counsel for the parties, heard together.3. Before entering into the discussion of the facts involved in these four writ petitio...
State/Cbi/Acb/Silchar Branch Vs. Arun Kanti Ghose (A-2) and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
H.N. Sharma, J.1. Challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 12.8.99 passed in Special Case No. 34 (C)/93 by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati acquitting the accused/respondents, the State (CBI) has filed this appeal against that judgment.2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Sr. Standing counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Sattar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.3. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 2 having been expired on 17.11.07 and no substitution having been prayed for by the appellant the appeal against the respondent No. 2, stood abated. During the course of trial another accused namely Lolit Mohan Puri also having expired, the present appeal rests only against the respondent No. 1.4. The prosecution case, as unfolded, is that during the year 1985-86 the accuse...
Rani Narah Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. On receiving a report submitted, under Section 173(2) of the Code, by the police, on completion of investigation of a case, disclosing commission of offence(s) by one or more persons, if a Chief Judicial Magistrate makes over the case for disposal to another Magistrate, subordinate to him, does such making over of the case necessarily denote that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence(s) and, having so taken cognizance, made over the case for enquiry or trial to the magistrate to whom the case was sent for disposal If a Judicial Magistrate issues process without condoning the delay, when taking cognizance stands barred by a period of limitation as prescribed in Section 468 of the Code, shall the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, necessarily and invariably, set aside and quash not only the order taking cognizance, but also the first information report or the complaint, as the case may be, and/or the police ...
Purno Boro Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.1. Writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows:In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner most respectfully prays that your Lordships would be most graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why-(a) A writ of certiorari should not be issued setting aside the impugned settlement order No. RRT. 132/01/115 dated 02.02.2002 passed by the Respondent No. 2 setting the land measuring 280 Bighas with the Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-2) and(b) A writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the State Respondents to settle the 280 Bighas of land with the agricultural tenants (Khatiandar); and after perusal of the cause or causes that may be shown and after hearing the parties the above Rule may kindly be absolute and/or pass any other order or orders as Your Lordships deem fit and proper-AND-Your Lordships may be further pleased in the interim pending disposal of the above Rule to kin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »