Guwahati Court June 2014 Judgments
L. Suruchi Devi Vs. Md. A.B. Eunus and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Heard Mr. P. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This contempt application arises out of an order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.454/2008 and WP(C) No.3790/2009. Notice of this contempt application was issued to the respondents. The respondents are served and duly represented. Perusal of the case record reveals that the order in question has since been complied with by the respondents by order dated 20.05.2013 which has been communicated to the Registry of this Court by letter dated 20.05.2013 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...
Tag this Judgment!Biroop Kr. Gogoi Vs. K.K. Dewivedi
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 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.3911 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 01.03.2013. 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 01.03.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3911 of 2012 reads as follows: Considering the grievance expressed by the petitioner and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner for regularization, this writ petition is disposed of by directing Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Pongkosh Sunar Vs. S. Barun Bhuyanb
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. SK Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent though served. 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.2537/2013 decided by the learned Single Judge on 14.5.2013. 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 14.5.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.2537/2013 reads as follows: In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions and observations contained in the decision in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) and Foziron Nessa and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and ...
Tag this Judgment!Baikuntha Nath Deka Vs. Mohan Chandra Boro and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Heard Mr. S. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the respondents. This contempt application arises out of an order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3038 of 2008. Notice of this contempt application was issued to the respondents. The respondents are served and duly represented. Perusal of the case record reveals that the order in question has since been complied with by the respondents by order dated 29.03.2014 which has been communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 04.04.2014 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 respondents in compliance to the...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Difolu Associates Vs. Jamina Khatun and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Heard Mr. R. K. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. This contempt application arises out of an order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3380 of 2013. Notice of this contempt application was issued to the respondents. The respondents are served and duly represented. Perusal of the case record reveals that the order in question has since been complied with by the respondents by order dated 24.06.2013 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 respondents in compliance to the order passed by this Court out of which this contempt application arises in a...
Tag this Judgment!Nur Khurshida Ahmed Vs. R.C Jain and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel 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.5429 of 2004 decided by the learned Single Judge on 06.03.2014. 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 06.03.2014 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.5429 of 2004 reads as follows: Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel referring to the affidavit in apposition filed by the respondent No. 3, submits that appointment of the petitioner was an irregular one and as per report of the one man committee headed by Shri S. Manoharan, IAS,...
Tag this Judgment!Apoorva Kr. Padmapati Vs. Tilok Chandra Das
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 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.2318 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 07.09.2012. 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 07.09.2012 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.2318 of 2012 reads as follows: In view of above, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioner who was selected earlier than the respondent No.3 shall be deemed to have been promoted though not earlier but at least from the date on which the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Ch. Kalita Vs. Dr. Suresh nath and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. R. C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel 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.5456 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 07.01.2013. 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 07.01.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.5456 of 2012 reads as follows: Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the University Authority has submitted that if any amount towards subsistence allowance is payable to the petitioner, the same shall definitely be paid having regard to the increments. It has als...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Anwar Hussain Choudhury Vs. Jitesh Khoshla and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. J. C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 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.936 of 2013 decided by the learned Single Judge on 28.02.2013. 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 28.02.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.936 of 2013 reads as follows: Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of applicants seeking appointment on compassionate ground prepared by the office of respondent No. 5 to show that the date of application of the petitioner was recorded as 14.9.2004...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrishna Talukdar Vs. The Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd [Lar] an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. D. Das, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB, appearing for the respondents. This is an intra-court appeal under Rule 2(3) of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.2695 of 2014 against the interim order dated 20.06.2014 passed by learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge declined to consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of ad interim writ in the pending writ petition filed by him and therefore feeling aggrieved by declining to grant him the prayer for ad interim writ in relation to the subject matter of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal. The case of the appellant (writ petitioner), in substance, is that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 25 bighas covered by part of Dag No.4 to 11 corresponding to Patta No.F.S. Grant No.1 of village Panikheti under Beltola Mouza in the district o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »