Guwahati Court January 2014 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.
Md. Moinul Haque, Dhubri and Others Vs. The Food Corporation of India, ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the 5 cases and the respondents are represented by Mr. P.K. Roy, the Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India (FCI). 2. Since common issue is raised in all the 5 cases and consolidated arguments are heard together, all the cases are disposed of through the following order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the WP(C) 1201/2008 are noted but the claims in all five cases in substance, arise out of similar facts. 3. The petitioners father Md. Safi Miya was a handling labour at the Food Staff Depot (FSD), Dhubri of the FCI and in pursuant to the circular dated 3rd July 1996 (Annexure-1), whereby compassionate appointment for FCI labourers retiring on medical ground was proposed to be considered, the serving handling labour Md. Safi Miya applied for retirement on medical ground and requested for appointment of the petitioner as the handling labour in the resultant vacancy. 4. Similar applicati...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. A Company Registered under Companies A ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
(CAV), J. 1. Challenging the judgment and award dated 3.7.2007 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 709 of 2004 the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., has filed this appeal. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 field MAC Case No. 709 of 2004 seeking compensation on accident and death of their brother late Lal Bora in a motor accident occurred on 10.3.2004. Both the claimants are brother and sisters of the deceased. 3. The appellant Insurer resisted the claim wherein interalia they raised the plea that since the claimants are brother and sisters and they were not dependent on the earning of the deceased. Moreover, they also denied that the accident took place due to any fault of the offending vehicle. The income of Rs. 3,400/- of the deceased was also disputed. Learned tribunal held that the accident took place as truck driver drove the vehicle in excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The income of the deceased was Rs. 3,400/- ...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. A Company Registered under Companies A ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
(CAV), J. 1. Challenging the judgment and award dated 3.7.2007 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 709 of 2004 the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., has filed this appeal. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 field MAC Case No. 709 of 2004 seeking compensation on accident and death of their brother late Lal Bora in a motor accident occurred on 10.3.2004. Both the claimants are brother and sisters of the deceased. 3. The appellant Insurer resisted the claim wherein interalia they raised the plea that since the claimants are brother and sisters and they were not dependent on the earning of the deceased. Moreover, they also denied that the accident took place due to any fault of the offending vehicle. The income of Rs. 3,400/- of the deceased was also disputed. Learned tribunal held that the accident took place as truck driver drove the vehicle in excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The income of the deceased was Rs. 3,400/- ...
Raj Kishore Buragohain, Permanent Resident of Milan Nagar Vs. The Airp ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
(Oral). 1. Heard Mr. I Choudhury, learned counsel representing the petitioner in both the cases. The respondent Airport Authority of India (AAI) and their officials are represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. KN Choudhury. 2. The two petitioners who are serving as Junior Assistant (Fire Service) challenge the order dated 30.11.2006, whereby in pursuant to a post appointment medical examination, the appointees were declared to be medically unfit and consequently their services were ordered to be terminated through the order dated 8.12.2006. They were recruited through a selection process after they responded to the advertisement dated 12.1.2003 for the 31 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service), to be deployed in the North East Region Airports. The eye vision stipulated in the advertisement was 6/6 vision of both eyes without glasses and it was specified that only those candidates who are found physically fit, will be entitled to appear in the written test/driving test/physical e...
Sanjib Gogoi and Another Vs. L.S. Changson and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Heard Mr. B.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This contempt application arises out of an order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.333 of 2006. Notice of this contempt application was issued to the respondents. The respondents are served and duly represented. Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that the order in question has since been complied with by the respondents and the same is clear from the letters dated 25.10.2011, 9.1.2013 and 8.3.2013 sent by the respondents to the petitioners purporting to be in compliance to the order out of which this contempt application arises. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records of the case and after taking into account the nature of the controversy raised, I am inclined to dismiss this contempt application with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned compliance s...
Pradip Kumar Das Vs. Mohan Chandra Boro and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr G. Rahul, learned counsel for the respondents. This contempt application arises out of an order dated 24.6.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3217 of 2011. Notice of this contempt application was issued to the respondents. The respondents are served and duly represented. Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that the order in question has since been complied with by the respondents and the same is clear from the letter dated 7th August, 2012 sent by the respondent to the petitioner purporting to be in compliance to the order out of which this contempt application arises. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records of the case and after taking into account the nature of the controversy raised, I am inclined to dismiss this contempt application with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned compliance said to have been made by the responde...
Bidhu Das and Others Vs. V K. Pipersenia and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1. Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned for the petitioner, Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel and Mrs. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner of WP(C) No.3667 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 2.8.2012. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 2.8.2012 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3667 of 2012 reads as follows: As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this writ ...
Md Rubul Ahmed Vs. Dilip Barua and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayanta Chutia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner of WP(C) 3553 of 2009 decided by the learned Single Judge on 16.05.2011. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 16.05.2011 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3553 of 2009 reads as follows: The claim of the petitioner involved in the instant case is for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Hasmot Ali on 16.8.2006, while in service. According to the petitio...
Remanshu Paul Vs. Kabir Ahmed and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
This is a revision filed by the defendant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment/decree dated 7.3.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No.114/2003 which in turn arise out of judgment /decree dated 29.9.2003 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division) Karimganj in Title Suit No.251/1999. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and reversed the judgment/decree passed by the trial court, which had dismissed plaintiffs suit on the preliminary issue raised by the defendant along with other issues, namely - suit is hit by principle of resjudicata under Section 11 of the Code. So the short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether first appellate court was justified in allowing the plaintiffs appeal by decreeing plaintiffs suit and in turn was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court which had dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Facts of the case li...
Prodip Kumar Doley and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondents. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by five writ petitioners in their individual capacity under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is whether each petitioner is entitled to take the benefit of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act so as not to compel each of them to pay any income tax on their total income which according to each of them is exempted from payment of income tax by virtue of the exemption contained in Section 10(26) of the Act. This, in principle, is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition and is raised for its decision. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also hearing the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Income Tax Department, on advance notice, we are of the considered opinion tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »