Guwahati Court August 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 Hangshanath Bara Vs. the Director of Elementary Education.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1The petitioner being aggrieved by the recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,277/- from his pensionary benefits on the ground of over drawal due to stepping up of his pay during his service period is before this court praying for a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to release the aforementioned sum. 2I have heard Mr S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Khatonier, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Govt of Assam. 3In brief, the petitioner s pleaded version is that he was appointed as Head Pandit of Tengaguri L. P. School on 23. 3. 1960 at the scale of pay of Rs. 50-1-60/- per month. Subsequently the said School was converted to M. V. School, namely Kalaigaon Adarsha Girls M. V. School on 11. 8. 1962, where the petitioner became the Assistant Teacher of the School at the scale of pay of Rs. 60-4-8-5-125/- per month. His services were provincialised w. e. f 5. 9. 1975. His pay scale was revised and he was also granted the benefits of extended scale o...
Alal UddIn Vs. Musastt. Junaki Begum.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. This Revision application under section 397 read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, has been filed by the husband challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 31. 10. 2009 passed by Sri A Hakim, learned SDJM, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in M R Case No. 262 of 2007 whereby the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance allowance to the 1st party and her minor child @ Rs. 1500/-each per month under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. I have heard Mr. A K Purkashtya , learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A J Atia, learned counsel for the wife/ opp. party. I have also perused the impugned judgment and the pleadings and evidences of both the parties, tendered in the Trial Court. 3. The impugned Judgment has been basically assailed on the ground that the judgment has been passed on the basis of foreign and non-concerned evidences. 4. Mr. Purkashthya , submitted that in the Trial Court only 2(two) witnesses were examined on be...
Julhash Ali Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
01. The determination of interse seniority between the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 and the arrangement whereunder the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Headmistress of the Uttar Barpeta High School, Barpeta (for short hereafter referred to as the School), is the subject matter of scrutiny in the instant proceeding. The order impugned is dated 11. 05. 2009, passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara. 02. I have heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R Islam, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam and Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 02. A. The recorded facts need be outlined in brief. The petitioner, respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 5 had joined the School on 19. 02. 1973, 19. 01. 1976 and 22. 05. 1978 respectively. Whereas, at the time of joining, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were graduates,...
Mahesh Das Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the conviction of the appellant u/s 313 IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 55/05 convicting the accused /appellant under Section 376/313 IPC sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo further R. I. for 1 month, the present appeal is preferred from jail. 2. Mr. A. Nath, learned counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the jail appeal. Learned amicus curiae was not present in the court on 24/9/10 and accordingly the appeal could not be heard on that day, today at the initial stage, he was not present but after hearing Mr. BB Gogoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent for a considerable period, the amicus curiae appears in the Court and prays for adjournment. The appeal is taken up today itself since the case relates to jail appeal. 3. On the basis of an FIR lodged by one Shyamoli Das on 2/11/02 with the officer-in-...
Jalal UddIn Vs. Musastt. Junaki Begum.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. This Revision application under section 397 read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, has been filed by t2. I have heard Mr. A K Purkashtya , learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A J Atia, learned counsel for the wife/ opp. pa 3. The impugned Judgment has been basically assailed on the ground that the judgment has been passed on the basis of foreign a4. Mr. Purkashthya , submitted that in the Trial Court only 2(two) witnesses were examined on behalf of the 1st party namely5. Although Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the Opposite party admitted the fact that statements of some persons, not tendered b6. The record of MR Case No. 262/ 2007 under section 125 Cr. P. C. shows that no witnesses by name Ashish Sen, Suman Dey or Dipa7. As noted earlier, learned SDJM has imported statements of 3(three) witnesses, not examined in the case. Had the impugned ju8. In view of the absurdity in the judgment and gross negligence on the part of the learned Magistrate, the impugne...
Mr. N. Dutta Vs. Mrs. V.L.SinghhA.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. A writ of mandamus has been sought for by the petitioner directing the respondent authorities to provide her appointment in the State service as a family member of persons killed by the extremists/terrorists under the Assam Public Service (Appointment of Family member of persons killed by extremists/terrorists) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). 2. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr B. Talukdar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs V. L. Singha, learned State counsel for the official respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that she is a graduate in Arts and has also acquired the LLB Degree. On 17. 8. 96 at about 6. 30 pm her mother while at her residence was killed by some extremists. The Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldoi on 13. 12. 2000 submitted a detailed report to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi about the incident. The petitioner thereafter applied for appointment under the aforementioned Rules....
Smti Arati Bora Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Heard Mr. C Baruah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Das, learned Government Advocate representing the official respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The private respondents against whom notices were deemed to be served by order recorded on 26. 9. 2005 are not participating in the proceeding. 2. This application is filed to challenge the order dated 16. 10. 1992 (Annexure-XI), whereby a portion of the land in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner is ordered to be vacated for handing over the said land to the respondent No. 6 Smti Mrinalini Baruah and her husband Golap Ch. Baruah (now deceased) as 1 Katha 4 Lechas of ceiling surplus land from Dag No. 1756 of village Japorigog of Beltola Mouza has been settled in favour of the respondent No. 6 and her husband. 3. The petitioner claims that following an application made by her and her husband late Durga Bora for settlement of land, the Government by order dated 25. 6. 1992 (Annexure-I) settled 1 Katha 4 Lecha...
Moinul Haque Alias Moina Mia Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Heard Mr. C Baruah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Das, learned Government Advocate representing the official respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The private respondents against whom notices were deemed to be served by order recorded on 26. 9. 2005 are not participating in the proceeding. 2. This application is filed to challenge the order dated 16. 10. 1992 (Annexure-XI), whereby a portion of the land in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner is ordered to be vacated for handing over the said land to the respondent No. 6 Smti Mrinalini Baruah and her husband Golap Ch. Baruah (now deceased) as 1 Katha 4 Lechas of ceiling surplus land from Dag No. 1756 of village Japorigog of Beltola Mouza has been settled in favour of the respondent No. 6 and her husband. 3. The petitioner claims that following an application made by her and her husband late Durga Bora for settlement of land, the Government by order dated 25. 6. 1992 (Annexure-I) settled 1 Katha 4 Lecha...
Renuram Mili Vs. the State of Assam.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Heard Mr. C Baruah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Das, learned Government Advocate representing the official respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The private respondents against whom notices were deemed to be served by order recorded on 26. 9. 2005 are not participating in the proceeding. 2. This application is filed to challenge the order dated 16. 10. 1992 (Annexure-XI), whereby a portion of the land in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner is ordered to be vacated for handing over the said land to the respondent No. 6 Smti Mrinalini Baruah and her husband Golap Ch. Baruah (now deceased) as 1 Katha 4 Lechas of ceiling surplus land from Dag No. 1756 of village Japorigog of Beltola Mouza has been settled in favour of the respondent No. 6 and her husband. 3. The petitioner claims that following an application made by her and her husband late Durga Bora for settlement of land, the Government by order dated 25. 6. 1992 (Annexure-I) settled 1 Katha 4 Lecha...
Md. Jonab Ali Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Heard Mr. A. Khaleque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. M. Das, learned counsel appears for the official respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th May, 2010 in Original Application No. 132/09 rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioners application in which he had challenged his removal in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. At the relevant time, the petitioner was functioning as a Branch Post Master of Kalajal Chowk P. O. 3. Initially an FIR was filed against the petitioner with the allegation of forged drawal of Govt. money in the shape of agents commission. But since enough evidence was not found to prosecute the petitioner under Section 468/420 of the IPC no final action on the criminal side was taken against him. 4. Thereafter on the basis a report of the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, a disciplinary proceeding was drawn...