Guwahati Court November 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.
Mrs. Ayesha Begam and Others Vs. Samir UddIn and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
Judgment and Order: M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.243/2005 has been filed by Smt. Ayesha Begam, the informant and mother of the deceased Mashuk Ahmed, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 28.09.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No.75/2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1161/2001, arising out of Patharkandi P.S. Case No.253/2001, acquitting the respondent Nos.2 to 7 from the charges framed under Sections 148/149/447/323/302 IPC and convicting the respondent Nos.1 and 8 under Section 304 Part-II IPC and under Section 323 IPC, respectively, praying for conviction of all the respondents under Sections 148/149/447/323/302 IPC. 2. Criminal Appeal Nos.255/2005 and 270/2005 have been filed by the accused, Abdul Hannan and Samir Uddin, (respondent Nos.8 and 1 in Criminal Appeal No.243/2005) against the judgment dated 28.09.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No.75/200...
On the Death of Sole Appellant, His Legal Heirs Are- Ms. Baby Rani Deb ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
Judgment and Order, (Oral) 1. This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon, in Title Appeal No.40/2001, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs by affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hojai at Sankardev Nagar, in Title Suit No.32/1992, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the present appellants as plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, namely, Benu Mohan Deb, instituted the suit praying for declaration of his right, title and interest and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, over a plot of land measuring 1 katha, described in schedule to the plaint, contending inter alia that he had purchased the said land from Brojendra Ch. Dey, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, by a registered deed of sale dated 06.03.1963 (Ext.-1) and since then he has been ...
Mrs. Charu Bala Barua and Others Vs. Mrs. Juri Sarma and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Judgment and Order, (Oral) 1. This appeal by the successors-in-interest of the defendant No.1, namely, Ajit Barua, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Appeal No.49/2000, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati, in Title Suit No.399/1996 (renumbered from Title Suit No.76/1988), whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs was initially dismissed. 2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land measuring 3 kathas 10 lechas, more fully described in Schedule-A to the plaint, and also for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants, for a decree that the sale deed dated 19.03.1985 executed by the defendant No.2 i...
Navendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-06-2013
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (18011809) 2. Article 21 is one of the most cherished provisions in our Constitution, which prohibits the State from depriving a person of his life and liberty except according to the procedure established by law. However, what happens if by the States action, which has been neither sanctioned by a legislation nor has been taken in valid exercise of its executive powers, the ineffaceable mandate of Article 21 gets smudged. This is precisely the issue, which the appellant has been, for almost a decade of litigation, urging the court to decide. Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to convince the Court in his writ petition of the correctness and righteousness of his contentions, the appellant is, now, before us, seeking a revisit to ...
Jyoti Prasad Bora @ Midul Bora Vs. the State of Assam, Represented by ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-05-2013
Judgment and Order, (Cav): 1. I have heard Mr. Giyasuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (for short, ASEB) for the official respondents. 2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner complaining of violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India by the ASEB by electrocuting to death of his only son, namely. Akash Bora. The case of the petitioner is that a high voltage (11 KV) over-head electric line passed through his village and over his house, which is located near the over-head electric line. On 29.8.2006, the high voltage live wire line got snapped and fell on the Akash Bora, when he was proceeding towards his house after playing. As a result, the deceased collapsed on the ground and instantaneously died on the spot. The villagers as well as the relatives of the petitioner rushed to the office of the Respondent No. 2 and informed the officials pres...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›