Guwahati Court January 2013 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.
Bolaram Roy Vs. Ranjit Dutta and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang at Mangaldoi, in Title Appeal No.17/1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.05.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Mangaldoi, in Title Suit No.14/1997. 2. The respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of possessory right and for recovery of khas possession by ejecting the defendant/appellant from the land described in Schedule-1 and 2 to the plaint, contending inter alia that the land was originally under the possession of their predecessor-in-interest and the proforma defendant No.2 Sudhir Kr. Dutta, out of which land measuring 5 bighas 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by dag No.283 in village Moamari has been under possession of the plaintiff since the year 1973 and land measuring 4 bighas 4 kathas co...
Bijoy Sing Deka Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Order: (Sharma, J) 1. Heard Mr. J.C. Barman, leaned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned APP, Assam. I have also perused the entire materials on record. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated 22.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 276(K)/2007, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC with the sentence of 7 years RI with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for another one year. The compensation amount is to be paid to the victim girl as per the provision of Section 357(c) Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the alleged victim girl was a consenting party. He submitted that the purported promise to marry her is not based on any evidence. 4. Mr. Gogoi, learned APP, Assam on the other hand submits that the petitioner having allured the vic...
Ataur Rahman Choudhury Vs. Msstt. Safijan Bibi and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1. This appeal by the defendant No.2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur at Tezpur, in Title Appeal No.9/1993, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.02.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tezpur, in Title Suit No.9/1990. 2. The plaintiff/respondent Safijan Bibi instituted Title Suit No.9/1990 for declaration of her right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession over the suit land described in the plaint, contending inter alia that the defendant No.1, who was the owner and possessor of the suit land, initially transferred the same in favour of the defendant No.3 by a registered deed of gift dated 13.09.1968, who, thereafter, vide registered deed of sale dated 28.07.1975 transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, thereby the plaintiff has acquired the right, title and int...
The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
S.C. Das, J. 1. The genesis of both the writ petitions, is an incident, which occurred on 23.09.2003 at about 5.00 pm in the office premises of National Research Centre for Mushroom(for short, NRCM), at Chambaghat, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Both the respondents, Dr. Sarveswar Dayal(hereinafter referred to as Dr. Dayal) and Dr. Yash Gupta(hereinafter referred to as Dr. Gupta) are husband and wife and they were on their official duty, while working as Scientist(Senior Scale) under Indian Council of Agricultural Research(for short, ICAR). 2. Having considered the submissions, made by learned counsel of both side, both the writ cases are taken up together for hearing and disposal, since the cases arose out of same incident and identical question of law and fact, involved in both the cases for decision by this Court. Therefore, this common judgment shall govern both the cases. 3. NRCM is an organization having its office/establishment at Solan, Himachal Pradesh under ICAR. The petitioners, h...
Lalmuanzuala and Others Vs. State of Mizoram Rep. by the Secretary
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral: 1. Heard Mr. Lalramhluna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-IV, Aizawl in Criminal Revision No. 107/2012 upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mamit in Crl. Tr. Ex. (M) No. 102/2012 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under section 8 (1)/45 of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995 (MLTP Act) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for a period of 3 (three) months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo further S.I. for a period of 5 (five) days. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. The petitioners were arrested by the Excise and Narcotic P...
Union of India Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Malig ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Ansari, J. 1. Heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.08.2012, passed, in Original Application (in short, OA) No. 78 of 2012, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, has directed the present petitioners to absorb the respondent No.1 herein in Group-D post in the Railways within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the presently impugned order, the petitioners have come to this Court seeking, with the help of this application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to get set aside and quashed the order, dated 21.08.2012, aforementioned. 3. The material facts, leading to the present writ petition, may be set out as under: (i) The respondent No.1 herein filed, as an applicant, the OA No. 78 of 2012, his case being, briefly stated, thus: (a) The applicant (i.e., respondent No. 1 herein) had been appointed as a Casual L...
Oishy Ering and Another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
1. Both the above Writ Petitions involve similar facts, grievances and point of law to be decided and as such both the Writ Petitions are heard together and proposed to be disposed of by this Common Judgment and Order. In the first Writ Petition, Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering joined as Medical Officer (Allopathy) in the Arunachal Pradesh Health Service on 11.2.1991. She was, vide Order dated 24.12.2003, given the first Time Bound Promotion to Senior Medical Officer (Allopathy) with retrospective effect from 12.2.1999 on completion of 8 years of regular service in the Grade of Medical Officer. She claims that she was entitled to 2nd Time Bound Promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer (Selection Grade) (Allopathy) with effect from 13.2.2004 when the completed 5 years of regular service in the Grade of Senior Medical Officer but the DPC held on 29.8.2008 did not consider her case for second Time Bound Promotion due to non-availability of Vigilance clearance. Another DPC was held on 29.8.2...
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secy and Other ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Judgment and Order Katakey, J. 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department, as well as the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, have filed the Review Petition No.22/2010 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 01.02.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.238/2008 (Moslem Mondal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in 2010(2) GLT 1), on the grounds set forth in the review petition. On 28.04.2010 when the review petition was taken up for consideration by a Division Bench, a prayer was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA No.238/2008 to hear all the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the appeal including amicus curiae assisting the Court and to hear the review petition along with other matters, which was accepted by the Court. Vide order dated 17.05.2010, while issuing notice in the review petition, the aforesaid Division Bench consisting of the Honble the then Chief Justic...
Mrs. Moni Orang Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Judgment and Order, (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 17.07.2006, passed, in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2004, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, convicting the accused-appellant, Smt. Moni Orang, under Section 302 IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: Deceased Samaru Orang was husband of accused Moni Orang. The couple used to live along with their daughter, accused Rumi Orang. 3. On 29.05.2003, the dead body of Samaru Orang was found floating in a pond near paddy field of village Lekai, the accused and the said deceased being residents of the said village. When the factum of the said floating dead body was brought to the notice of Bijoy Orang, the head-man of the said village, Bijoy Orang lodged an information, i...
Rijia Bibi and Others Vs. Md. Abdul Kachem and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1. This second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned court below erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents by holding that the WILL executed by late Abdul Khalaque was void in operative being opposed to the provisions of the personal law of the parties? 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty for the respondents. 3. Fact of the case may be summerised thus: 3.1 One Abdul Khalaque died on 16.12.1987, leaving behind 3.25 acres of land. After his death respondent No1, since deceased, claiming to be the first wife and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming to be sons of Abdul Khalaque through his first wife, claimed their share to the property left by Abdul Khalaque but the defendants i.e. appellant No.1 being the second wife and appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the sons of Abdul Khalaque through second wife and appellant Nos. 7 and 8 being the daughters of Ab...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›