Guwahati Court July 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.
Moriam Begum Vs. Abdul Hussain
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
Moriam Begum Versus Abdul Hussain Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a revision filed by the defendant against the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by Munsiff, Sankardeve Nagar, Hojai in Money Suit No.03/2009. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff declined to grant adjournment to the defendant for filing the written statement in a suit filed by the respondent thereby deprived him of filing a written statement to contest the suit on merits. So the short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether learned Munsiff was justified in not granting further adjournment to the defendant to file the written statement. The impugned order dated 24.06.2014 reads as under: Plaintiff side absent. Defendant side present. Defendant side filed petition No.1329/14 praying to grant some time to file written statement. Prayer rejected as no further adjournment can be granted as asked on last date. Fix 23.7.2014 for necessary order. It is clear from ...
Biplab Chanda Vs. State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, 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.2588 of 2012 against the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants writ petition and declined to grant him the relief which he had claimed in his writ petition. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellants writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while setting aside of the impugned order remand the case to the writ Court for deciding the writ petition on merits, afresh. In our considered opinion, th...
Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sonar Cachar Pu ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This revision is filed by the defendant-Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 20.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge No.2, Cachar at Silchar in Misc. Case No.24/2011 and Misc. Case No.25/2011 arising out of T.S. No.27/2000. By the impugned order, learned Civil Judge declined to take on record the written statement already filed by the revision petitioner (defendant) on 28.11.2011 (Annexure-13 to this revision petition) in the suit. So the short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether learned Civil Judge was justified in not allowing the defendant to file the written statement or in other words whether learned Civil Judge was justified in not taking the written statement filed by the defendant on record in the suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) for adjudication of the...
M/s. Sangeeta Agency Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. None for the petitioner. Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance, appearing for the respondents. Sri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered on 24.07.2012 in WP(C) No.578 of 2009 by a coordinate Bench and therefore this petition may also be disposed of in the light of the detailed order passed in the aforesaid case. We have perused the detailed order passed by this Court on 24.07.2012 which disposes of several writ petitions involving identical points which is subject matter of this writ petition. Accepting the submission, we dispose of this writ petition in the light of the order dated 24.07.2012 passed in WP(C) No.578 of 2009. A copy of the order dated 24.07.2012 passed in WP(C) No.578 of 2009 be kept in the file of this case and be treated as a part of this order. The reasoning and the conclusion including the directions contained in t...
M/s. Speedy Carriers of India and Another Vs. State of Assam and Other ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr J. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr R Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. The decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern disposal of two connected writ petition being WP(C) Nos.2390/2006 and 2391/2006 because in these writ petitions, as stated by learned counsel appearing for the parties, common question of law is involved and therefore they can be disposed of by one order. Indeed, the other two matters are not listed today but on being mentioned that the other two matters also involve identical points which is subject matter of this writ petition, we asked the Registry to list the other two matters to avoid any conflicting orders in identical writ petitions. This is how all the three writ petitions are listed today for their analogous disposal. This is a writ petition filed by the writ petitioner a registered dealer under the provisions of Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short called The Act) under Article 2...
Subra Nath Vs. The Government of Nagaland and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. None for the petitioner. Heard Ms. T. Khro, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland. On 25.05.2006 this Court passed the following detail order while entertaining this taken up writ petition, in our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India relating to PIL. This writ petition has been taken on file on the strength of a letter addressed by one Mrs. Subra Nath, wife of Late Subrata Nath, in which it is, inter alia, alleged that on 5.6.1997 at about 11 AM her husband was brutally murdered by none other than his own brother at Dimapur, Nagaland. The accused surrendered himself to the Dimapur West Police Station. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed against the accused by the police. It is alleged that the investigation was lopsided one, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the accused. It is further alleged that even the trial court was not fair in conducting the trial as it had not taken into account the statement of the persons, who were ...
M/s. Engineers Construction Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr RK Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr R Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001. It is brought to our notice that this Act was declared ultra vires by this Court in a case reported in 2008 (15) VST Page 70 (State of Assam and Ors. -vs- Chota Bhai Jetha Bhai Patel Tobacco Products Company Ltd. ) decided on 30.8.2007. It is also brought to our notice that against the said decision, the State has gone to Supreme Court in SLP being SLP Nos. 24934-25066 of 2007 which are pending for final disposal in Supreme Court. It may also be pertinent to mention that subsequent to the decision rendered by this Court in Chota Bhai Jetha Bhai Patel Tobacco Products Company Ltd. (supra), the State came out with another legislation on the same subject by removing the defects on which the As...
The State of Assam and Others Vs. M/s. B.D. Brothers and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Heard Mr. A. K. Barooah, learned counsel for the appellants. This is an appeal filed by the defendant (State of Assam) against the judgment and decree dated 27th of April, 2012 passed in Money Appeal No.11 of 2009 by the Court of Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati arising out of judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 passed by Munsiff No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati passed in Money Suit No.102/2006. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned first appellate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the State and in turn confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which had decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs.1,44,133.90 against the appellant (State). So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C. P. Code? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention. The appellant is the defendant whereas respondent is the plaintiff. ...
Kaheka Pralo Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Ms. M. Borah, learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India invoking our PIL jurisdiction for a direction to respondents for appointment of Chairperson of State Human Rights Commission for the State of Arunachal Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA for short). Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. The State of Arunachal Pradesh has filed the return duly supported by annexures. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh on the basis of return/documents submitted that process for appointment of Chairperson has already started and is likely to complete within a period of three months. In the light of ...
Musaraf Hussain Vs. Mortaza Hussain
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of the C P Code against an order dated 09.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Misc. (J) Case No.32 of 2012. By the impugned order, learned Civil Judge dismissed the application made by the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C P Code on the ground of delay in filing the application late by 5 years 7 months and 19 days. Facts of the case are these. The appellants civil suit being Title Suit No.27 of 2003 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.07.2006 by the Civil Judge. The appellant therefore filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 to recall the order on 15.05.2012. Since there was delay of 5 years 7 months and 19 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 ibid and therefore an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also made by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. It is this appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »