Guwahati Court June 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.
Reazuddin Akand Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. B. S. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we are not inclined to entertain this petition filed to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction of public interest litigation (PIL) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to wakf property situated at Bara Masjid, Tezpur and such issues relating to any wakf property are dealt with and decided by the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995. In other words, in our view, the remedy of the petitioners lie in approaching the concern Wakf Tribunal of the area which is competent to decide the questions raised by the petitioners. On our perusal of the averments made in the petition, we find that the issue raised in this petition is of the nature which squarely falls...
MD. Joynal Abedin Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mr. K. P. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education, appearing for the respondent. This appeal is filed under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules by respondent No.5 of W.P.(C) No.5180 of 2011, against the order dated 05.06.2012 passed in the aforesaid writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Heard on Misc. Case No.1406 of 2014. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning of delay in filing appeal. According to the appellants, the delay in filing appeal is of 516 days. The question therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or not? Advance notice of this application was served on the State respondents. In our opinion, the delay of 516 days is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot b...
Pravanjan Kishore Dev Varman Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. J. Huda, learned Central Govt. Counsel, 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.2905 of 2011 against the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants writ petition and declined to entertain the same on merits on the ground that remedy of the appellant (writ petitioner) lies in approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and file an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act for raising his grievance before the CAT rather than to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So the short question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant under Articl...
Pravanjan Kishore Dev Varman Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. J. Huda, learned Central Govt. Counsel, 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.2905 of 2011 against the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants writ petition and declined to entertain the same on merits on the ground that remedy of the appellant (writ petitioner) lies in approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and file an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act for raising his grievance before the CAT rather than to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So the short question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant under Articl...
Darcl Logistics Ltd Vs. Gail [India] Ltd. and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.535 of 2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant any relief to the appellant (writ petitioner). So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant? The dispute involved in the case relates to award of contract for the work Transportation of Naptha from GAIL, Lakwa to M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Haldia by the respondent No.1, a Govt. of India Company GAIL. Since 100% of the contract was not awarded to appellant but 50% was awarded to Respondent No.6 b...
Dr. Mrinmoy Bhuyan and Another Vs. The State of Assam, represented by ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. The decision rendered in this appeal (WA No.222/2014) shall also govern the disposal of the other connected appeal being WA No. 216 of 2014 because both appeals arise out of common order passed by the Single Judge (writ court) in two writ petitions arising out of one controversy between the same parties. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 2613/2014 and respondent No. 6 of WP(C) No. 1627 of 2014 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petitions. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge, partly allowed one writ petition being WP(C)No. 1627/2014 and issued a writ of certiorari against the State and its authorities quashing the second result declared by the State on 14.3.2014 in relation to the entrance examination held for admission in MDS Course (Assam) in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati and further issued a mandamus dir...
Abdul Ali and Others Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondents. This is a PIL filed by the petitioner against Respondents No.8 and 9 complaining, inter alia, that the school run by the Respondents No.8 and 9 under the name Pschim Khurda Faladi L.P. School does not exists. In other words, it is a fake school. It was also complained that in any event the said school is being run contrary to the norms and without permission. This Court directed the State respondents to make verification and submit the report in that behalf. Accordingly, report dated 14.3.2013 is submitted. We have perused the report. On perusal of the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education and District Elementary Education Officer, we notice that allegations made by the petitioner are not correct rather they are false. In other words, the report submitted shows that the school in question has obtai...
Baknaithao Bargoyari and Another Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 3406/2012 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 29.04.2014 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 any relief to the writ petitioners (appellants) which they had 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. The question arose before the writ court as to whether appellants who are working as elementary school teachers were eligible for provincialization of their services. The writ court held and in our opinion rightly that since Rule 5 (3) of the Rules provides for two years continuous services at the time of provincialisation and the appellants had not completed two years and hence ...
M/s. Bajrang Tea Trading Company Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner a dealer under Assam General Sales Tax Act seeks to challenge the show cause notice No. 2523 and 504 dated 2.3.2005 and 1.8.2005 issued by Respondent No. 3 in Bakijai Case No. 51/04-05/AGST. Facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The writ petitioner a proprietary concern is engaged in the business of buying and selling the tea in Guwahati. Earlier it was a partnership firm but later after its dissolution, became proprietary concern of the petitioner. It is registered as Dealer under the provisions of Assam General Sales Tax Act. (For short hereinafter called The Act). The petitioner suffered a demand of payment of sales tax dues of Rs. 4, 20,964 for the assessment years 97-98 and 98-99 in his assessment done by the assessing authorities under the Act. He felt aggrieved of the assessment order claimed that he has filed the revision petition challenging the assessme...
Lohit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mrs. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department, for the respondents. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. They are engaged in the business of sale of various commodities as specified in their certificate of registration (Annexure-B at Page-27). Their only grievance in this writ petition is that on 28.2.2014 (Annexure-D) they applied before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Unit-C, Guwahati (Respondent No.3) for supply of Form No.61 (delivery notes) in accordance with the requirements of Rule 41 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, but till date, despite repeated reminders to Respondent No.3, the authority concerned has not supplied the required delivery notes as provided under Rule 41 due to which petitioner is suffering loss and inconvenience and it has virtually deprived the petitioner from doing business in r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »