Guwahati Court May 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.
State of Manipur and ors. Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-23-2008
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur dated 14.1.2008 wherein and where under the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur ordered that:i) The information sought by the petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) which is more fully described in para. 1 request to provided a Photostat copy of his answer script in written test as well as the marks awarded to him separately in the viva-voce, personality test by the DPC members in the recruitment of SI/ Jamadar in Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006 after concealing the identity of signature of the examiner, incase if it is recorded in that script and the members to be provided by the SPIO within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order, all free of cost under intimation to this Commission. The personal appearance of the petitioner in the office of SPIO is not required.ii) The appellant can approach this C...
Maibam Ibohal Singh Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-22-2008
Asok Potsangbam, J.1. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A. Jagjit Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, Manipur for the respondents.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.1.2001 (Annexure-A/6) passed by the Commanding Officer, 9th Battalion, Manipur Rifles, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 7.1.2003 (Annexure-A/9) passed by the DIG (Ops.) (appellate authority) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Commanding Officer, 9th Battalion, Manipur Rifles. The State Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the relevant records of the Departmental Enquiry have also been produced before the Court.3. Briefly stated, the petitioner and some other Riflemen belonging to the 9th Battalion, Manipur Rifles, Taphou were detailed for election duty to the 13th Lok Sabha Outer Parliamentary Constituency of Manipur in Senapati District with .3...
Milan Goala Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-22-2008
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mrs. M. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in place of Mr. N. Baruah, earlier appointed Amicus Curiae as he has found to be absent when the Jail Appeal No. 104(J)/2002 is called upon for hearing.2. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned P.P., Assam.3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.12.2000, when Girin Goala, the brother of the informant Rajesh Goala, P.W.-2 (herein-after referred to as the deceased) came out of his house for night guard duty of the village defence party, the accused Milan Goala, another brother of the informant, came there from somewhere and indulged in altercation with the deceased to whom the later caused serious injuries on his person by stabbing him with the pointed weapon in his hand. The deceased was brought to the Raja Ali Tea Garden Hospital for treatment in an injured state and he died on his way to hospital and to this effect an FIR was lodged by Shri Rajesh Goala, P.W.-2 with the Officer...
L. Suroliba Sangtam and ors. Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-21-2008
P.K. Musahary, J.1. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities.2. The writ petitioners numbering 70 claim that they were appointed as Constable by the Superintendent of Police, Kiphire, Nagaland in the month of November and December, 2005 after having been declared medically fit by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kiphire. The aforesaid appointment orders were kept in abeyance by an order dated 18.11.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kiphire till the additional fund under salary head is received from the Government. Subsequently, by an order dated 24.11.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kiphire, the earlier order of keeping the appointment orders in abeyance, were revoked. The petitioners, after the aforesaid revocation order, represented before the Director General of Police, Nagaland for release of their salaries; but the same were not paid ...
Smt. Namita Pal Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Whether a person, other than one, who is registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') shall obtain permit, as prescribed in form XVIII, in terms of the provision of rule 46 read with rule 47 of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (for short, 'the Rules') in order to enable such a person bring, into the State of Tripura, goods, which are taxable under the Act? This is the moot question, which stands raised in the present writ petition.2. Before adverting to the question posed above, it is necessary to set out the respective cases of the parties concerned.3. The petitioner's case, in brief, reads as under:The petitioner purchased, on September 19, 1988, a new ambassador car (diesel), manufactured by Hindustan Motors Limited, from their dealer, M/s. Austin Distributors Ltd., having registered office at 19, Jawharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-87, and took delivery of the car from the showroom of the dealer, at Calcutta, on September 9, 1988 itself. On...
Gaurikanta Barkataky Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-16-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Because of the fact that the questions of law, which are involved in the present set of appeals, are identical, the parties to these appeals are also the same and decision in any of these appeals would have a bearing on the outcome of the other appeals, all these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The appeals have been admitted on the following questions of law:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, ignoring the relevant materials before it, was justified and did not err in holding that there was no existence of valid Hindu undivided family and thus pass a perverse order ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the returned income is to be assessed in the hands of Krishna Kanta Barkataky and Ajit Barkataky in the absence of a finding that the funds invested in FDRs emanated from the individual income of K....
Ajit Hagjer @ Lambu Dimasa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-2008
Aftab H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Payeng and Mr. A. Medok, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.C. Chakravorty, learned Central Government Counsel (for short, 'C.G.C.') representing the Union of India and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State Counsel representing all the State official respondents.2. The legality and correctness of the detention order dated 3.8.2007 issued by the District Magistrate, N.C. Hills, Haflong detaining the detenu/petitioner under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') have been questioned in this Habeas Corpus Petition.3. It is alleged that the detenu while was in custody on being arrested in connection with Mahur P.S. Case No. 19/06 under Sections 147/148/149/435/506 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act the impugned order of detention was issued. However, the impugned order along with the grounds for detention were not served upon the dete...
Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company, engaged in the business of development and sale of immovable property, i.e., real estate, have impugned a notice, dated March 6, 2006 issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Central Excise, to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner-company has been asked to get itself registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Finance Act, 1994'), inasmuch as the petitioner-company has been, according to respondent No. 3, 'providing commercial or industrial construction service/construction of complex service'. The petitioners challenge the very authority of respondent No. 3 to issue the notice, which stands impugned in the present writ petition, the case of the petitioners being, in brief thus: Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of developm...
Lourembam Sana Singh Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-2008
T. NK. Singh, J.1. The doctrine of preventive power of the Administrative/Executive authority, constitutionally validate preventive processes for the maintenance of public order, security of the State, national security, defence of India and relations of India with the foreign power. Even so, deprivation of personal freedom, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objective of the society, specified in the Constitution.2. Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (C/B), reported in observed that:When Law ends. Tyranny begins: Legislation begins where Evils begins. The function of the Judiciary begins when the function of the Legislature ends. Because the law is, when the Judges say it is since the power to interpret the law vests in the Judges.3. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the detention order being No. Cril/NSA/No. 49 of 2007 dated 11-9-2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West in exercise of the p...
R. Dosanga and anr. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-14-2008
H. Baruah, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the letter No.A.41014/2/02-HFW dated 01.11.2006 and letter No. C.11018/1/2005-DHS/MPW dated 13.11.2006 and for a further direction to the respondents to pay arrear pay and allowances and other benefits to the petitioners in view of their reinstatement in the service by the respondents.2. Heard Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.3. Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petitioners were initially appointed on 04.09.1964 as Surveillance Workers in the office of the Unit Officer, NMER Aizawl. Their services were terminated vide order dated 16.04.1966 by the State Malarialogist, Assam, Shillong until normal movement in the district possible and services were restored. Normalcy restored after signing the Peace Accord on 30.06.1986. The Government of Mizoram thereafte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »