Guwahati Court March 2008 Judgments
Sorojini Devi and anr. Vs. Oinam Jugeshwar Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
M.B.K. Singh, J.1 .These two writ appeals being W.A. No. 38 of 2008 and W.A. No. 39 of 2008 have been filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Bench disposing of W.P.(C) No. 136 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 127 of 2008 jointly. Since a common question of law and facts are involved in these two appeals, they are proceeded jointly.2. We have heard Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the principal respondents and Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Addl. GA appearing on behalf of the Govt, respondents.3. The principal respondents in these two writ appeals are six of 11 elected members of Bishnupur Zilla Parishad and they filed the above said two writ petitions. The appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 are the Adhyaksha and the Up-Adhyaksha of the said Zilla Parishad and they were the respondents 5 and 6 respectively in both the writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!RiazuddIn Mia Vs. Sahidul Islam Choudhury and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
T. Nanda Kumar Singh, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagaon in Title Suit No. 78 of 1989/231 of 1993. Both the 1st appellate Court and the trial Court made concurrent findings of fact that the appellant plaintiff has no right and title over the suit land described in Schedule A to the plaint and the suit houses described in Schedule B to the plaint.2. The present second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law formulated at the time of the admission, of the appeal which reads as follows:1. Whether the Courts below erred in law in interpreting the decision in Title Suit No. 4/46 and decide the suit in question 3. Heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Boro and ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
H.N. Sarma, J.1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, in GR Case No 336(A)/1998 convicting the appellant No 1 under Sections 302/34, IPC, the appellant No. 2 under Section 302/34, IPC read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B) of the Anns Act, the appellant Nos 3 and 4 under Section 109/34, IPC read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentencing the appellant Nos 1 and 2 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.00 by each of them and the appellant Nos 3 and 4 to undergo imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 by each of them.2. We have heard Mr N.S. Deka and Mr P. Das, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr R Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, Meghalaya.3. The unfolded prosecution case, inter alia, is that on 24.11.1998, the Officer-in-Charge, Rynjah Police Station received a written complaint from one Smt YV Gatphoh of Lumshngain, Ry...
Tag this Judgment!Sarif UddIn and ors. Legal Heirs of Habib Ali Vs. Mujamil Ali @ Abdur ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
H.N. Sarma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.1998 passed in Title Appeal No. 07/1996 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cachar, Silchar thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1995 passed by the Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Cachar at Silchar, passed in Title Suit No. 126/1994 decreeing the suit with cost.2. I have heard Mr. P. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit praying for declaration of their share of jote and tenancy right over the suit land described at Schedule I specified in Schedule II for a preliminary decree for partition of their share without disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs by restraining the defendants from alienating or changing the nature and feature of the suit land.4. The claim of the plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 1 Shri Majamil Ali Choudhur...
Tag this Judgment!Debajit Chakraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Heard Ms. B. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner who, at the relevant time, was an Assistant Grade-III(D) in the Regional Office of the FCI at Guwahati has assailed an order dated 01.06.2002 (Annexure-8) by which the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1.50 lacs from his monthly salary in 35 equal installments has been ordered. The aforesaid penalty has been imposed on the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 60 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations which empower the authority to impose a minor penalty without holding an enquiry if deemed fit and proper. It may also be put on record at this stage that under Regulation 54 of the aforesaid Regulations, recovery of amount of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence of mis-conduct of an employee has been incorporated as a minor penalty.3. The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset:A Memorandum of Charges dated 07....
Tag this Judgment!Khanindra Hazarka Vs. Rekha Sakia and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The challenge made in this writ petition is the judgment and order of the Revenue Board reversing the order of the Revenue Authorities allowing mutation in favour of the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, his father Late Dimbeswar Hazarika had been in possession of the land in question. After the demise of his father, the petitioner is in possession of the land. Such possession is stated to be from 1935 continuously and without any interruption. It is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired right, title and interest over the land by way of adverse possession and by operation of Section 27 of the Indian Mutation Act. The petitioner has constructed residential house over the plot of land which is also bounded by brick walls. The petitioner has been paying dues like land revenue, municipal taxes, electricity charge etc. to the authorities.3. The private respondents herein are the heirs of Late Nabin Saikia, who died interested on 19.3.1999. Late Nabin Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Anjana Dhekial Phukan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate representing the detaining authority. Mr. H. Rahman, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India apepars for the Central Government.2. Petitioner, who is the wife of Robin Dhekial Phukan has filed the present petition to challenge the detention order dated 13.12.2007 issued against her husband, hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu', whereby the District Magistrate, Tinsukia in purported exercise of power under Section 3 read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the NSA, ordered detention of the detenu for a period of 3 months.The substance of the detention order is extracted as below:ORDERPerused the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia vide No. DSB/TSK/2007/7426 dt. 12.12.2007 and enclosed dossier of Sri Robin Dhekial Phukan S/O. Lt. Dhoneswar Dhekial Phukan, resident of village Kak...
Tag this Judgment!Shantanu Borthakur and anr. Vs. Management of Gauhati Stock Exchange L ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Determination of the scope and ambit of the powers of an industrial tribunal, while acting on an application under the proviso to Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'the said Act'), forms the subject of controversy in this appeal.2. Before we enter into the merit of the appeal, the material facts, giving rise to this appeal, are, in a nutshell, set out as under:(i) While the appellants herein were working as workmen under the respondent No. 1, namely, Gauhati Stock Exchange, as employer, a domestic enquiry was held by the management against the appellants on a charge of misconduct and, on the basis of the report of the domestic enquiry, so held, both the workmen were dismissed from service. Since, however, an industrial dispute, covered by Ref. No. 1/1997, arising out of a charter of demands of the employees of Gauhati Stock Exchange, was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, the management filed an application, under Section 33...
Tag this Judgment!Dimbeswari Saikia Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 are presently serving as teachers, in Madhab Dev High School, in the district of Lakhimpur. The petitioner joined the said school, on 02.06.1982, as an Assistant Teacher. When the school was provincialised with effect from 19.11.91, the petitioner was the second senior-most teacher in the said school, the senior-most teacher, in the said school, being, at that point of time, Golap Chandra Hazarika, who was the headmaster of the school. By virtue of an order of transfer passed on 04.05.2004 respondent No. 4 came to the said school as an Assistant Teacher on being transferred from Sankardev Collegiate High School, where she had been serving as an Assistant Teacher. The relevant portion of this order is reproduced hereinbelow:Mutual transfer on their own request are hereby made in between the following Assistant Teachers with their own pay, grade and service and posted at the schools as shown against each in the interest of pub...
Tag this Judgment!Puran SurIn Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
P.K. Musahary, J.1. Heard Ms. M. Jain, learned Amicus curiae, for the appellant and Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.2. The accused appellant had done to dead his own brother Labin Surin striking thrice of his head by an axe at around 6.30 PM on 04.10.2000 in his residence and surrendered himself before the Police with the crime weapon axe. The next day in the early morning at 5:00 AM, their uncle Ranjan Surin lodged an FIR and a case was registered Under Section 302 IPC by the Missamari Police Station. The crime was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. Thereafter, the Addl. Session Judge, Sonitpur, framed charge Under Section 302 IPC against the accused, to which, on being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial.3. The prosecution examined in all, 13 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer but the accused examined none in his defence. On the basis of evidence on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »