Guwahati Court March 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.
Pankaj Paul Vs. The United Bank of India and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record of the case, in our considered view, the proper remedy of the petitioner appears to be to approach the respondent Nos.1/2 United Bank of India, Silchar Branch, Silchar and submit a proper representation to enable them to take a decision on the same keeping in view the prayer made by the petitioner for liquidating their loan liability arising out of the loan transaction. So far as this Court is concerned, we do not have any jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned action because even according to the writ petitioner he being a defaulter is liable to repay the money. In other words, there is no legal issue that arises for consideration in the case. It is for the Bank now to decide whether any indulgence can still be granted to the petitioner in payment of the remaining amount to liquidate the liability and if so how and in what manne...
Binay Khandelia Vs. The Punjab National Bank and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. 1. Heard Mrs. P. Chakrabotry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents. It is brought to our notice that the matter which is subject matter of this petition is also the subject matter of O.A. No.32 of 2013 along with Misc. Application No.71 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati between the parties to this writ petition. It is also brought to our notice that the matter is now at a stage of hearing and final arguments are also heard by the Tribunal in the said original application/miscellaneous application. If that be so, then in our opinion there is no point in keeping this matter pending because all the points are already being adjudicated by the Tribunal in a regularly filed application under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In a situation like the one, we are inclined to dispose of this petition without express...
Hindustan Paper Corp. Ltd. Officers and Supervisors Association Vs. M. ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned for the petitioner and Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice. 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 Writ Appeal No.316 of 2009 decided by the Division Bench on 21.02.2013. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal with the direction to the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate order to remove the anomaly determining the pay of employees in the higher cadre at least one rupee higher than the pay scale of its employees in the feeder cadre. 4. The operative part of the order dated 21.02.2013 rendered in the connected Writ Appeal No.316 of 2009 reads as follows: Learned counsel for the Union of India submi...
Debasish Biswas Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. A. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application made by the appellant of Writ Appeal No.43 of 2013 under Article 134A of the Constitution of India seeking certificate for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Review Petition No.54 of 2013 which, in turn, arose out of the main order of the Division Bench dated 18.02.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.43 of 2013. We have perused the main order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice (Mr. Justice A. K. Goel) and Mr. Justice A. K. Goswami and also the order passed in review petition filed against the said order which resulted in partly allowing the review petition to the extent indicated therein. Having perused the aforesaid two orders i.e. the order passed in writ appeal and the review, we are afraid, we can entertain this application for more than one reasons. In the first p...
Petition Vs. Respondent
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education, appearing for the respondents. On entertaining this PIL against the respondents in relation to certain irregularities said to have been committed into the affairs of Golia Sri Rampur Pre-senior Madrassa, Goraimari, the Government got the enquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Ramendra Nath Sarma), Barpeta. The enquiry officer by his report dated 17.12.2013 which is placed on record concluded as under:- Sri SK Sinha, Inspector, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Deptt, Barpeta was entrusted to cause a detail enquiry into to the matter and a suspension proceeding has been drawn up, under the provision of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, against the FP Shop dealer, the Deputy Director i/c, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Deptt, Barpeta stated. We have perused the enquiry report and find that as suggested in t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Barak Industries Ltd
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. S Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. RP Agarwalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R Goenka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter called the Tribunal), Guwahati in ITA No.45/Gau/2009 arising out of the assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on 10.4.2013 on the following two substantial questions of law;- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of transport subsidy, insurance subsidy, power subsidy and central excise refund would go on to reduce the expenses incurred under that particular head and the resultant profits and gains of...
Mrs. Manjita Rani Basumatary, Assam and Others Vs. The State of Assam, ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
(Oral). 1. Heard Mr. RM Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S Khound, learned Standing counsel, BTC appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, Mr. K Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36 and 39 and Mr. A Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioners, 15 in numbers, were selected pursuant to an advertisement as Assistant Teacher, except the petitioner No. 2, who was selected as a Lower Division Assistant (L.D.A.) in different Higher Secondary/High Schools, though wrongly mentioned as M.E. in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. However, as they were not appointed, they have approached this Court. 3. Mr. RM Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is covered by a judgment dated 18.08.2008, passed in WP(C) No. 5867/2003, which is also listed today alongwith this case. 4. It is submitted...
Mohet Hojai, Assam Vs. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
(Oral). 1. The challenge in the writ petition is the order dated 22.10.2013 of the learned Special Judge, CBI (Additional Court No.1) in Special Case No.12/2010. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the criminal proceedings in the CBI SC No.12/2010 and 10/2010, now pending before the CBI Court are not maintainable in view of the provisions of The National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid two cases are not maintainable in law in view of the proceeding against the petitioner and others in the NIA Special Court in the form of Case No.01/2009. 2. The petitioner, who is involved in NIA Special Case No.01/2009 has already been charge sheeted on 05.06.2009 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A) of the IPC read with Section 16/17/18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act. Presently, the proceeding in the said case is going on and as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as many as 32 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 3....
Chakra Bharali, Resident of Village, Dhenudharia Vs. The Union of Indi ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
(CAV), J. 1. The writ petition pertains to award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) for the location Panigaon in Telahi Block in the district of Lakhimpur under physically handicapped category. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his candidature. Be it stated here that the selection is made by draw of lots and the respondent No.4 has already been selected and he has been issued with the Letter of Intent (LOI). 2. Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner along with other physically challenged candidates offered their candidatures for RGGLV dealership for the location at village- Panigaon under Telahi Block in the district of Lakhimpur. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner in his application gave details of his permanent residence which is village-Dhenudharia, Panigaon Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner as per the requirement of the advertisement also submitted documents relating to land. When he was informed vide Anenxure-3 letter dated 31/08/...
Nani Gopal Palit, The then Assistant Manager, Nagaon Branch, Assam Vs. ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
(Oral). 1. Heard Mr. TN Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. N Barua, Advocate. 2. The petitioner has retired as an Assistant Manager from the State Bank of India (SBI) on 31.12.2010 and he challenges the order dated 6.6.2003 of the disciplinary authority, whereby he has disagreed with the finding of the inquiry officer. Then the appointing authority through the order dated 10.11.2003 has inflicted the following punishment on the retired Manager:- Reduction to the beginning of the time scale of pay in JMGS-I for a period of 3 (three) years with further directions that the officer will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing further increments of his pay in terms of Rule 67(f) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. 3. The Appellate Authority and the Review Committee through their respective order(s) of 26.4.2005 and 7.3.3006 had uphe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »