Guwahati Court January 2011 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.
Smti Junali Doley Vs. the State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1.These writ petitions, being related to the no confidence motion brought against the President of Ghilamara Anchalik Panchayat under Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad, are taken up for disposal together. WP(C) No.4815/2010 has been filed by the Vice President and 4(four) members of the said Anchalik Panchayat challenging the communication dated 12.08.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad intimating the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat that as the resolution expressing want of confidence on the President of the Anchalik Panchayat (respondent No.8) has not been adopted by the majority of 2/3rd members, the same vitiates the provisions contained in Section 43(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short the 1994 Act) and as such no further action could be taken in that regard. A further prayer has also been made to declare that the office of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat stands vacated on 07.08.2010 when the resolution expressing want of confidence was...
Manju BorgohaIn Baruah Vs. the State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. These writ petitions, being related to the no confidence motion brought against the President of Ghilamara Anchalik Panchayat under Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad, are taken up for disposal together. WP(C) No.4815/2010 has been filed by the Vice President and 4(four) members of the said Anchalik Panchayat challenging the communication dated 12.08.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad intimating the Executive Officer of the Anchalik Panchayat that as the resolution expressing want of confidence on the President of the Anchalik Panchayat (respondent No.8) has not been adopted by the majority of 2/3rd members, the same vitiates the provisions contained in Section 43(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short the 1994 Act) and as such no further action could be taken in that regard. A further prayer has also been made to declare that the office of the President of the Anchalik Panchayat stands vacated on 07.08.2010 when the resolution expressing want of confidence wa...
Abdul Malik Vs. the State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1.The President of Pub-Mangaldoi Anchalik Panchayat (in short the Anchalik Panchayat) has filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 19.03.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer (In-Charge) of Darrang Zilla Parishad (in short the Zilla Parishad) informing the writ petitioner that a special meeting has been convened on 29.03.2010 at 11 A.M. in the office of the Anchalik Panchayat to discuss the no confidence motion brought against him by few members of the Anchalik Panchayat.2.7(seven), out of 11(eleven) directly elected members of the Anchalik Panchayat submitted a notice on 26.02 .2010 expressing want of confidence on the writ petitioner, pursuant to which the Chief Executive Officer (In-Charge) of the Zilla Parishad issued the impugned notice dated 19.03.2010 informing the writ petitioner and other members of the Anchalik Panchayat about convening the special meeting on 29.03.2010 to discuss the no confidence motion brought against the writ petitioner. The writ petitio...
Ashok Kumar Saboo Vs. Hindustan Paper Corporation.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
ORDER The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the communication dated 21st June, 2005 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Finance) of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Nagaon Paper Mill, to M/s Durga Trading Company, intimating to remit an amount of Rs.33,16,746/- as liquidated damage after adjusting the amount of Rs.112.68 Lakhslying with the Corporation in the credit of M/s Rahul Enterprises, from the total liquidated damage of Rs.1,45,84,746/- for its failure to successfully perform the contract. The basic ground on which the said communication has been challenged is that M/s Rahul Enterprises and M/s Durga Trading Company both being two different proprietorial firms, the petitioner No.1 being the proprietor of first firm and the proforma respondent No.8 being the proprietor of the second firm at the relevant point of time, any dues payable to the proprietor of M/s Rahul Enterprises under a contract, cannot be adjusted against the dues of the proforma respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›