Guwahati Court June 2010 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.
Sri Bhudev Ojah Vs. Sri Kishak Bayan.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
01. The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended) (hereafter for short referred to as the Code) is the judgment and order dated 24. 03. 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 29/2007 dismissing the appeal of the present appellants. The appeal before the first appellate court was against the judgment and decree dated 19. 06. 2007 and 20. 06. 2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta in T. S. No. 41/1998, decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs. By the decision impugned in the instant appeal concurrent findings of facts have been recorded. 02. I have heard Mr. BK Bhagabati, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. 03. A brief outline of the rival pleadings would be necessary. The aforementioned suit was initially instituted by Sri Kishak Bayan and another against Sada Ojah (since deceased), the father of the appella...
Smt. Meera Bora Vs. Smti. Hira Nath.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
01. In challenge is the order dated 28. 04. 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Probate Case No. 344/2007, rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for Letter of Administration on the ground that the same being not verified by her, was not in compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 280 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereafter referred to as the Act). 02. I have heard Mr. KK Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. NK Kalita and Mr. A Barman, Advocates for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice on the respondents, none has entered appearance to resist the prayer made herein. 03. The petitioner, though not the executor of the Will involved, initially filed a petition for probate under the aforementioned legal provision and thereafter sought amendment in the averments to condition the same to facilitate issuance of a Letter of Administration instead. The Will and testament involved is one executed on 10. 08. 2006 by Kamal...
M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs. the Union of IndiA.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. By a common judgment and order, dated 06. 01. 2010, three writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 591/2008, 1048/2008 and 2814/2008, were allowed to the extent as were indicated in the said judgment and order. All these three writ petitions arose out of actions, which had been taken by the respondents/authorities concerned on their interpretation of certain notifications, which were issued, from time to time, by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, granting exemption from payment of excise duty and additional duty of excise to certain specific classes of manufacturers, who set up industries in any of the seven North-Eastern States. The writ petitioners had set up their industries under two notifications bearing No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE, both, dated 08. 07. 99, whereunder the Central Government had exempted certain goods, manufactured in the specified areas, in the North-Eastern Region of India, from payment, inter alia, of excise duty or additional duty of...
Sri Girish Ch. Gogoi Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. Heard Mr. B D Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (writ petitioner). The Education Department and its officials are represented by the standing counsel Mr. M R Pathak. The private respondent Nos. 5 to 11 are represented by the senior counsel Mr. N C Das, who informs that respondent No. 7, in the meantime has expired. 2. This case pertains to the inter se seniority claim amongst the lecturers of Sadiya College, where the private respondents on the basis of their length of service in the college were declared senior to the appellant (writ petitioner). The appellant contends that although he was appointed as a lecturer at a later date after the private respondents, by virtue of possession of the prescribed UGC norms, he was given the UGC scale of pay from an earlier date whereas the private respondents were in a lower scale of pay and accordingly, the appellant ought to be considered as senior to the private respondents. The rejection of the appellant's seniority claim...
Sri Rabindra Nath Kalita Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
01. These two appeals carry a challenge to the judgment and order dated 14. 12. 2007, passed in WP(C) No. 4934/2006. Thereby the moderation of the grading of the respondent No. 1 herein in his Annual Confidential Reports (for short hereafter referred to as the ACR) for the period from 01. 04. 2004 to 24. 06. 2004 and 28. 07. 2004 to 17. 02. 2005 from "Outstanding" to "Very good" and "Good" respectively, was interfered with and the State respondents were directed to reassess his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State (hereafter for short referred to as the Department) by treating the remarks of the reviewing authority for the said periods to be the bench mark of appraisal. Further, a direction to effect his promotion, if adjudged fit and eligible from the date of those made pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 28. 07. 2006, was also made. The respondent No. 1, incidentally, was the writ petitioner...
Putul Chetri Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13/8/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 2/2001 convicting the accused u/s 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7(seven) years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer another six months simple imprisonment. 2)I have heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel led by Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3)The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged on 23/4/98 by one Smt. Menoka Barman alleging that on 22/4/98 at about 6-30 PM in her absence, the accused /appellant entering into her house committed rape on her minor daughter aged about 7 years. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Gossaigaon PS Case No. 62/98 u/s 376 IPC was registered against the accused and the process of investigation started. The Investigating Officer (for short, ?I/O?) during the ...
Sri Samir Ghosh Vs. the State of TripurA.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. The above mentioned two writ appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 15-6-07, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 114 of 2000 and W. P. (C) No. 355 of 2006. The short question, involved in the said writ petitions, was whether the item pea gravel is a taxable item, under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, TST Act ) as well as the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, TVAT Act ) or not. The learned Single Judge, by the said common judgment and order, disposed of the writ petitions, deciding thereby that the item pea gravel is a taxable item under the TST Act with effect from 28-2-2000 i. e after the insertion of the word gravel , by the Tripura Sales Tax (8th Amendment) Act, 2000, in the schedule of the chargeable items, attached to the Act and that the said item is not a taxable item under the TVAT Act, 2004. 2. Challenging the decision, reached in W. P. (C) No. 114 of 2000, that pea gravel is a taxable item, under ...
Shri Tilak Saikia Vs. State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
1. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Ms. B. Das, learned Govt. Advocate. Mr. D. Barua, learned CGC appears for the Accountant General(AG). 2. 1The petitioner, who retired from service on 28. 2. 2001 as an LDA of the Tezpur Mahkuma Parishad, has filed the instant petition to challenge the penalty order dated 21. 9. 04 (Annexure-P) inflicted in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, which started with the suspension of the petitioner on 29. 5. 85. He also seeks a direction on the respondents for payment of his pensionery dues and his arrear pay and allowances. 2. 2. While the petitioner was posted as an LDA-cum-Cashier of the Tezpur Mahkuma Parishad, on detecting financial anomalies in the accounts of the Mahkuma Parishad, the petitioner was placed under suspension and an FIR was lodged and Tezpur P. S. Case No. 309/85 under Section 409 IPC was registered on 29. 5. 85. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tezpur, b...
All Are Residents of Village Hindughopa Vs. Smti. Sabitri DekA.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
1. This appeal by the defendants in Title Suit No. 6/1997 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3. 1. 2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Darrang at Mongoldoi in Title Appeal No. 4/1999 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 6. 8. 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Darrang, Mongoldoi in Title Suit No. 6/1997, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed. 2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land covered by schedule Ka and Kha , for recovery of the possession in respect of the land and house described in scheduled Ka , Kha and Ga . The whole basis of claiming right, title and interest is that Amulya Kuchuni, the owner of the plot of land measuring 9 bighas 8 lechas though initially executed a will the same was, however, subsequently revoked by a registered deed (Ext. 2) and thereafter gifted the same...
The Union of India Vs. Md. JasiruddIn Talukdar.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
1) The common question that arises for adjudication in this batch of cases is that whether the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to condone the delay in filing the connected appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati under the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.2) I have heard Mr. UK Nair, and Mr. SS Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioners and Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents.3) As a lead case, the facts as available in Misc. Case No. 1238/09 which was filed for condoning the delay of 472 days in filing the connected MFA No. 62/10 are being taken note of. In this application, the applicant /petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 21/7/07 passed in Review Application No. 136/05 as well as the judgment and order dated 25/7/08 passed in the Review Application No.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »