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.
Samir Sarkar Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-02-2008
U.B. Saha, J.1. Heard Mr. PR. Barman, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Tripura Public Service Commission, Mr. N.C. Pal, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 5.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction for quashing/canceling the recommendation/selection of the Tripura Public Service Commission (for short TPSC) vide Notice No. F. 66(1)-TPSC/94(P-3) dated 22.09.07 issued by the Secretary, TPSC, the respondent No. 2 herein, whereby names of four selected candidates were recommended including the name of respondent No. 5 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science, Group-B Gazetted in the Institution of Advance Studies in Education (for short IASE) under the Directorate of Higher Education relating to Item No. 2 of the TPSC A...
Smt. Mukul Rani Deb (Majumder) and anr. Vs. Haripada Deb
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-02-2008
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein instituted Title Suit No. 50 of 2008 seeking declaration of not only their rights and title over the suit land, but also cancellation of the will, claimed to have been executed by Smt. Rajlaxmi Deb (since deceased), mother of the petitioner No. 1 herein and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.2. The petitioners herein appeared, as defendants, in the suit and filed their written statements, wherein they denied and disputed the allegations made by the plaintiffs (i.e., the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) against the genuineness and/or validity of the said will.3. In course of time, when the suit reached the stage of evidence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as plaintiffs, submitted their examination-in-chief on affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1, who was one of the defendants in the suit, also submitted his examination-in-chief on affidavit. Before cross-examination of the plaintiffs (i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) could have comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›