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.
Karuna Nidhan Chakma Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
U.B. Saha, J.1. The petitioner, a constable in 2nd Tripura Armed Forces Bn., for short TAP Bn., files the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the Memorandum dated 06.05.97, whereby and whereunder the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for committing gross misconduct and betrayal of his fellow colleagues in connivance with extremist etc. and the order of punishment dated 24.4.2000 as well as for quashing those orders along with other prayers.2. This Court heard Mr. N. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.3. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: When the petitioner was posted at Kalajhari DAR Camp in Raishyabari P.S. Gandhacherra, he was detailed for performing patrolling escort duty by boat on 03.10.95 from Kalajhari to Mandirghat under the command of Head Constable (HC) Phani Bhusan Sarkar along with other constables with arms. ...
Dinesh Goyenka Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Whether Section 32-A completely bars jurisdiction of the appellate Courts to suspend, by invoking the provisions of Section 389(2), Cr.P.C., the sentence passed against a person following his conviction for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'the NDPS Act')? If the embargo, placed by Section 32-A, on the powers of the appellate Courts to suspend, by invoking its powers under Section 389(1), Cr.P.C., is not absolute, what are the parameters of such power of suspension in respect of a person, who stands convicted and sentenced for having been found to have committed an offence under the NDPS Act? These are the two major questions, which this Misc. Case has raised.2. On being tried, along with two other persons, on a charge, framed under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, for having been allegedly found, on 14-6-2000, in possession of ganja (Cannabis) without any authority of law, the accused-petitioner and the said ...
Karamat Ali Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Sendeka, learned State counsel representing the official respondents.2. The legality and correctness of the order dated 8.8.05 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5663/05 has been assailed in this writ appeal.3. The order dated 8.8.05 under challenge may be quoted as under:The challenge in the instant writ petition is against the order dated 20.6.2005 passed by the illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal, Barpeta in Case No. 2208/2003.The Apex Court by order dated 12.7.2005 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2000 has declared the Constitution of the aforesaid Tribunals under the Act to be constitutionally invalid. In fact, the Act itself has been struck down. In the aforesaid order of the Apex Court the proceedings pending before the Appellate Forum have also been declared to have abated.In such a situation, it will be difficult for this Court to entertain this writ petition. Dism...
Raghubir Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ravi Kumar Sureka and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The defendant in Title Suit No. 16/2001, by the present petition, is challenging the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1, Tinsukia (now Munsiff No. 1) refusing to stay further proceeding in the said suit by rejecting the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that the matter in issue in Title Suit No. 16/2001 and in Title Suit No. 15/2001 is not directly and substantially the same and the plaintiffs in both the suits are different.2. The present opposite parties instituted Title Suit No. 16/2001 against the present petitioner in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1 at Tinsukia praying for his ejectment from suit premises and delivery of khass possession and also for recovery of arrear rent contending inter alia that the premises in which the petitioner has been carrying on his business originally owned by M/s Ramesh Chandra Chakraborty Trust Estate and the petition...
Karam Thamarjit Singh Vs. Md. AllauddIn Khan
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This miscellaneous application has stemmed out of Election Petition No. 2 of 2007. The election petitioner has filed this application objecting the counterclaim made in the written statement filed by the respondent in the main election petition.2. Before I step in the legal question raised in this miscellaneous application, it would be apposite to set out the facts of the case giving raise to the filing of the election petition, as well as this application.2.1 The election petitioner and the respondent and few other candidates contested the election of the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly from 6-Keirao Assembly Constituency. The election result was declared on 27-2-2007. The respondent defeated the election petitioner by a thin margin of 2 (two) votes only. Having realized that due to improper and illegal reception of few votes materially effecting the election of the respondent, one of the defeated candidates namely Shri Thamarjit Singh has challenged the election ...
Abala Devi Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Both the writ petitions being connected To each other, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioner in the first writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 3661/2005 is the Respondent No. 5 in the second writ petition i.e. W.P. (C)No. 5639/2005. Similarly, the petitioner in the second writ petition is the Respondent No. 5 in the first writ petition. While the grievance of the petitioner in the first writ petition is the order having effect of her reversion from the promotional post from Upper Division Assistant (U.D.A.) to her original post of Lower Division Assistant (L.D.A.), the grievance of the petitioner in the second writ petition is his non-promotion to the post of U.D.A., which promotion was earlier provided to the petitioner in the first writ petition.3. The basic facts are not in dispute. While the petitioner in the first writ petition was appointed in the establishment of the Regional College of Nursing (R.C.N...
Usha Rajkhowa and ors. Vs. Paramount Industries and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
A. Hazarika, J.1. Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. LA. Talukdar appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. M. Choudhury learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. None appeared for respondent No. 1 inspite of service of notice.2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Golaghat in MAC case No. 13/ 99.3. Necessary facts may be stated herein, in a nutshellA claim case was filed by the applicant Snit. Usha Rajkhowa claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Yadav Rajkhowa in a Motor vehicle accident. The claimant's case is that on 5.12.98 at about 7 P.M. her husband went to Dergaon market from his house at Dadhara in his Maruti Car bearing No. WB/12/6287. On the way to Dergaon, one truck bearing No. NLA-241 coming from Jorhat side towards Boka...
Jawaharlal Das Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, working as Junior Engineer In the Public Works Department (PWD) is aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed on him pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The penalty imposed is recovery of the amount, which the department allegedly sustained because of misconduct on the part of the petitioner.2. The petitioner who entered into the services of the PWD way back in 1985 was placed under suspension by order dated 25.6.1999 pending drawl of departmental proceeding. Thereafter Annexure-1 charge sheet dated 21.12.1999 was issued bringing altogether 4 charges against the petitioner, which are quoted below:Charge No. 1 : That while you were Sectional Officer of R. K. Nagar Sub-division under Karimganj PWD Road Division, on scrutiny and enquiry of the Bills at site, it is found that you have submitted 62 Nos. of bills without receiving any materials. The quantity of the materials stated in the bills were not found at site nor found to be utilized in any work. ...
Ahammad Ali Vs. Ali HussaIn and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in T.A. No. 9/97 by the learned District Judge, Barpeta dated 23.3.1999 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta in T.S. No. 62/94 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1.2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 and Mr. K. Basar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Title Suit on 5.12.1994 pleading inter alia that the land measuring 14 Bigha 2 Katha 18 Lechas covered by Dag No. 543 under K.P. Patta No.6 at village Pakdahbil pathar has been fully described in schedule 'A' of the plaint falls a part of the suit land. The original owner was late Maizuddin who died 50 years ago leaving his son Jonab Ali and wife Mariam Nessa who inherited the said property. Later on both of them where also died leaving beh...
Diganta Mazumdar Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Anima Hazarika, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Chakravorty, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.2. The accused appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 30-4-2002 passed under Section 366/376(1) IPC in sessions case No. 46(D-M) 1998 by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, convicting the accused appellant under Section 366 IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00/-, in default, further RI for 2 months. The appellant was further convicted under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, further RI for 2 months.3. The prosecution case In brief is that an FIR dated 5-1-98 has been lodged by one Smti Narmada Bhuyan, mother of the victim girl alleging that in the afternoon of 2-1-98 the victim girl was on the road at Tangla Town where she was intercepted by the accused. The accused appellant took her...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »