Guwahati Court May 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.
Azizur Rahman Vs. The State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-20-2014
(Oral) Katakey, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar, in Sessions Case No.15/2005, convicting the accused appellant under Section 448 IPC, 326 IPC and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months for the offence under Section 448 IPC; for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to under rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) month for the offence under Section 326 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of 1(one) month for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. A criminal investigation was set in motion on lodging of the first information report by Md. Raimuddin alias Rahim Uddin (PW-1) on 11.11.2001 with the Officer-in-Charge of Udharband Police Station alleging that at 7.30 P.M. on 10.11.2001, M...
M/s. Pawan Enterprises and Another Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department for the respondent. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order No.26/GHY/CE(A)GHY/2014 dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Tribunal. By the order impugned, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the writ petitioner on the ground of limitation. Since the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the Tribunal did not examine the issue involved in the appeal on merits. The order of Tribunal reads as under: 1. This appeal is filed by M/s Pawan Enterprises, Abhaya Chandra Dutta Land, F.A.Road, Kumarpara, Bharalumukh, Guwahati 781 001 (here-in-after referred to as the appellant) against the order-in-original No.21/Addl.Commr./ST/VNT/2010-11 dated 10.02.2011 (here-in-after referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Ser...
Khirode Singha and Another Vs. Bikhalata Devi and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-2014
This is a second appeal filed by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment/decree dated12.3.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Karimganj in Title Appeal No.19/1998 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 8.6.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Karimganj in Title Suit No.119/94. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court allowed the plaintiffs appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree passed by the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit against the defendant in relation to the suit property. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether first appellate court was justified in allowing plaintiffs appeal and in turn was justified in decreeing his suit against the defendant. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in declaring the title of the plaintiff over ...
Khirode Singha and Another Vs. Bikhalata Devi and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-2014
This is a second appeal filed by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment/decree dated12.3.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Karimganj in Title Appeal No.19/1998 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 8.6.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Karimganj in Title Suit No.119/94. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court allowed the plaintiffs appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree passed by the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit against the defendant in relation to the suit property. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether first appellate court was justified in allowing plaintiffs appeal and in turn was justified in decreeing his suit against the defendant. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in declaring the title of the plaintiff over ...
Prabin Kumar Mandal, Kamrup (R), Assam Vs. The State of Assam, Represe ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-16-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. 1. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 806 of 2014 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants writ petition and declined to grant him the relief claimed in the writ petition. So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single judge was justified in dismissing the appellants writ petition? In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition and now in appeal, few relevant facts need mention herein below.On 11.12.2013, the State (Executive Engineer, IWT, Division Guwahati) invited tenders for providing Ferry Service between the places called Hohuwa-Sombaria-Bhogdia-Directory,II) Majortoop (Alikash) Bhagnamari, Nowbhaja, Dekardiya, Kalartoop, Saralpara, Kalapani (Club Basis) in Brahmaputra Riv...
M/s Orang Tea Estate Represented by its Manager Vs. The Union of India ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-16-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. This decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern the disposal of one connected writ petition being WP(C) No.3462 of 2006 because both the writ petitions involve the same point. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner (employer) seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 10 (8) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (for short hereinafter called The Act ) which was inserted in the Act by way of an amendment by Act no 46 of 1982 w.e.f. 21.8.1984. Section 10 (8) whose validity is under challenge reads as under: - 10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals: - (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing,- . (8) No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman, and such L...
Rohim Uddin, Assam Vs. The State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-2014
(Oral), Katakey, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2012 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No.124/2007, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) year. 2. The prosecution story as revealed from the first information report lodged by Mustt. Amina Khatun (PW-1) as well as from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that on the night of 19.03.2007 the accused appellant, who was residing with his wife Almina Khatun (deceased), killed her and thereafter fled away with the gold and silver ornaments. The Officer-in-Charge of Rangsai Police Outpost based on the first information report (Ext.-1) lodged by Amina Khatun (PW-1) on 20.03.2007 alleging that when her daughter Almina Khatun (deceased) and her husband Rohim Uddin (accused appellant) did...
Durga Swargiary Vs. The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissione ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-2014
Oral: By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of selection of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar under the administrative control of Director of Audit (Local Fund), Assam as well as for a direction to the respondents to include him in the select list and thereafter to appoint him to the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he is a matriculate and belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (Plains) community in the State of Assam. An advertisement dated 02.06.2011 was issued by the Director of Audit (Local Fund), Assam (respondent No. 2), inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to one post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar in each Circle Offices under the administrative control of the Director of Audit (Local Fund), Assam, respondent No. 2. The Circle Offices are Kokrajhar, Nalbari, Barpeta, Goalpara, Dhubri, Tezpur, Sivasagar, Jorhat, Dibrugarh, Nagaon, Diphu, Lakhimpur, Silchar and...
Siba Gogoi Vs. Haren Gogoi and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-13-2014
Judgement and Order (CAV) [1] The above mentioned appeals are directed against the common judgment and order, dated 03.07.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia in Misc (probate) Case No. 114 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 88 of 2002. As both these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order, involving same parties, represented by same sets of Advocate, for the sake of convenience and brevity, I have heard the appeals together and propose to dispose of the said appeals by this common judgment and order. [2] The relevant facts that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, may, in brief, be stated as follows: (i) The appellant is the wife of late Monoj Gogoi (hereinafter called the deceased) and Master Tusher Gogoi, respondent No. (ii) in Misc. (probate) Case No. 114 of 2002, is their minor son. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the brother and the sister respectively of the deceased-husband of the appellant. (ii) The said couple, by entering into...
Dilip Chandra Kalita, Assam Vs. The State of Assam, Through the Commis ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-09-2014
(Oral). 1. Heard Mr. IH Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to an order dated 01.07.2013 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, allowing the respondent No. 4, treating him to be the senior most Assistant Teacher of Karia Higher Secondary School, Karia, to hold the charge of Principal i/c of the said Higher Secondary School from 31.05.2013. 3. The contention advanced by Mr. Saikia is that the respondent No. 4 does not meet the criteria of 15 years of service in a Higher Secondary School to be eligible in terms of Rule 12 (d) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation of Service) Rules, 2003, for short, Rules of 2003, for appointment as Principal. 4. It is submitted by him that a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment and order da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »