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.
Laxmi Hazarika and Others Vs. Manjur Ali
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
This is a civil revision filed by the plaintiff/landlord under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 30.3.2005 passed in Title Appeal No.23/2004 by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sibsagar which in turn arise out of the judgment/decree dated 16.11.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Sibsagar in Title Suit No.9/93. By impugned order, the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which had decreed plaintiffs suit for eviction against the defendant and while allowing the defendants appeal dismissed the plaintiffs suit. So the question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether first appellate court was justified in allowing the defendants appeal which resulted in dismissal of plaintiffs suit Facts of the case are these:- The petitioners are the plaintiffs whereas the respondent is the defendant. The petitioners (plaintiffs) claiming to the Owners and the landlords of the suit accommod...
Ghana Pegu Resident of Hill View Residency, Guwahati and Others Vs. Th ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(Oral). 1. Judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) 3838/2010 has been brought under challenge by two review petitions, namely, Review Petition No. 155/2013 and Review Petition No. 156/2013. The Review Petition No. 155/2013 has been filed by one Ghana Pegu, who was the respondent No. 6 in the main writ petition and the review Petition No. 156/2013 has been filed by one Aswini Kumar Baishya, who was the respondent No. 6 in the main writ petition.4 2. I have heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.K. Bora, learned counsel for review petitioner in Review Petition No. 156/2013. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the review petitioner in Review Petition No. 155/2013. Both these review petitions have been contested by the writ petitioner. I have heard Mr. U.K. Nair on behalf of the writ petitioners. In these writ petitions I have also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel of the Co-operation Department. 3. Mr. D. Das, le...
Basanta Prasad Nunia, Hailakandi, Assam Vs. The Union of India, Repres ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Ms. R. Bora, the learned Central Government Counsel. 2. The petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF by responding to the advertisement issued by the Inspector General of Police, CRFP, Guwahati and after his candidature was evaluated by the Selection Board, the petitioner was offered appointment through the letter dated 4.4.2006 2 WP(C) No. 3190/2006 (Annexure-D) issued by the Addl. D.I.G., CRPF. However despite the offer of appointment, the petitioner was not allowed to join service and accordingly the aggrieved candidate is before the Court. 3. The petitioners height is 165.5 c.ms. and the issue here is whether he is entitled to relaxation of the height requirement, meant for Hill area/Tribal candidates which prescribes a lower height standard of 165 c.ms. instead of the required height of 170 c.ms. 4. The petitioner contends that he offered his c...
Jayanta Baruah, Assam Vs. Dilip Baruah, Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(CAV), J. 1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, the petitioners pray for setting aside of the order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barpeta in C.R. Case No. 4632/2010 taking cognizance of offence under sections 500/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners and the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 4632/2010. 2. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party. 3. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 4. The opposite party had filed the complaint case, amongst other, against the petitioner No. 1 as accused No. 1 being the proprietor of an Assamese daily newspaper, Asomiya Pratidin and the petitioner No. 2, represented by the petitioner No. 1, as accused No. 5, being the press, from which the issue dated 01.10.2010 of the said newspaper Asomiya P...
Prasanta Kr. Das, Assam Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Guwah ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Board of Secondary Education, Assam (for short SEBA) is represented by Mr. T.C. Chutia, the Standing Counsel. The Principal of the Raha Higher Secondary School (respondent No.5) is unrepresented although a counter affidavit was filed on his behalf on 30.6.2009. 2. The matter pertains to the plea for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in the High School Leaving Certificate issued by SEBA. According to the petitioner, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 26.2.1972 whereas his correct date of birth is 2.3.1975 and for the correction of the SEBA certificate, the petitioner is before the Court with a 3rd case. 3. The petitioner appeared in the matric examination in the year 1990 and when he appeared in the examination, the SEBA issued him an Admit Card showing his date of birth as 2.3.1975 (Annexure-II). But when the petitioner received his original School Leaving Certificate from his school i.e. Raha Hi...
Human Welfare Mission Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mr. S.B. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a PIL filed by the petitioner for claiming following reliefs by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The relief claimed are these: In the premises aforesaid the petitioners prayed that Your Lordships may be Pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction shall not be issued for granting the following reliefs, viz: 1). To direct the respondents to cancel all engagement of CRCC taken on Attachment basis. 2). To direct the respondents to cancel all recruitment made vide Advertisement dated 17/10/12. 3). To direct the respondents to stop the transfer of teachers from those schools whose Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) is below the minimum mandatory ratio as mentioned in the 2009 Act. 4). To direct the respondents to fill up all the...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
AM. Sapre, CJ. 1. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) 6385/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and declined to grant her any relief which she had claimed in the writ petition. So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned single judge was justified in dismissing the appellants writ petition. The controversy involved in the writ petition can be gathered by reading the impugned order which is short and hence instead of repeating the facts separately in our order, it is apposite to reproduce the entire impugned order in verbatim herein below. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-7 list of employees found eligible for provincialisation of their service under Section 4(1) of the Assam Venture Educa...
Naba Kumar Nath and Others Vs. The State of Assam, Represented by the ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
(Oral). 1. The petitioners numbering 7 are the elected members of No.7 Barkhetri Anchalik Panchayat. They are aggrieved by appointment of the respondent No.9 as the President of the said Anchalik Panchayat providing reservation as SC (Woman). 2. According to the petitioners, the post ought to have been provided to a General category member instead of reserving the same for SC (Woman) candidate. In this connection, referring to the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, the petitioners have shown the population pattern of Schedule Caste in descending orders of the jurisdictional Anchalik Panchayat in the District of Nalbari in the following manner:-Sl NoName of Anchalik PanchayatGeneralSchedule CastePercentage1.No.5 Tihu A.P70,16013,48619.22%2.No.3 Paschim Nalbari A.P1,13,08811,88610.51%3.No.6 Barbhag A.P.58,6134,0396.89%4.No.1 Pub Nalbari A.P1,12,9555,3014.69% 5.No.7 Barkhetri A.P1,64,8157,0734.29%6.No.2 Barigog Banbhag A.P.97,41...
Nurul Haque Vs. State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
AM Sapre, CJ. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) 5217/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge (writ court) dismissed the appellants writ petition with observations. So the short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the writ court was justified in dismissing the appellants writ petition. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, so also the controversy involved in the appeal, and hence, instead of reproducing the facts in our order, we consider it apposite to reproduce the entire impugned order in verbatim, which contains the facts and the reasoning of the writ court. Heard Mr. A.Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. VL Singh, learned State counsel for the respondents. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petiti...
Sushil Kumar Sarkar, Assam and Others Vs. The State of Assam Represent ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
(Oral). 1. All the writ petitions being interconnected have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. While the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1709/2006 and WP(C) No. 1540/2013 have been filed by one Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar along with others, the third writ petition being WP(C) No. 4673/2012 has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman along with others. The fourth writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 898/2011 has been filed by the Guwahati District Teachers Association supporting the case of Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. 2. In WP(C) No. 1709/2006, the challenge made is the Annexure-M order dated 25/01/2006, by which the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary and Secondary) under the signature of the Commissioner and Secretary, rejected the claim of Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and ordered derecognition of the School, which was provincialised vide order dated 25/08/1998 w.e.f. 19/11/1991. The order so passed is said to be in compliance of the order dated 23/03/2005 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »