Guwahati Court August 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.
Dr. Gobin Chandra Bora, PS- Lichubari Vs. The Assam Agricultural Unive ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-2014
(Oral). B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Katakey, learned counsel, representing the respondent University. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 06/08/2014 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 786/2014 by which the writ petition that was filed by the appellant against the order of his transfer from Jorhat to Gossaigaon has been dismissed. For a ready reference, the impugned transfer order is reproduced below:- OFFICE OPF THE REGISTRAR ::: ASSAM, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY :: JORHAT-785013. No. 2.1(23)-2008/RG/2013-2014 Dtd../2014. ORDER In the interest of Assam Agricultural University service and with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, Assam Agricultural University, Dr. Gobin Ch. Bora, Pr. Scientist, AICRP on Vegetables, Assam Agricultural University8, Jorhat is hereby transferred and pos...
Management of M/s. Escorts Construction Equipment Limited, New Delhi V ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
(Oral). 1. Heard Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel. None has appeared for the respondent No. 4. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 23/05/2006 of the learned Labour Court, Assam, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 13/2001. By the award while answering the issues sent for determination, the learned Labour Court has held that the respondent No. 4 is a workman under the petitioner management and the termination of his service being in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India, he would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. 2. From the materials on record it appears that the petitioner had raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the reference on the ground that the respondent No. 4 is not a workman within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Although the said application was entertained but no prelimin...
Dalim Das, Assam and Another Vs. The State of Assam, Represented by th ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
(Oral). 1. This writ petition is directed against the Annexure-10, preliminary enquiry report dated 28.03.2014; Annexure-13 communication dated 23.07.2014 of the Government of Assam in the Political (Vigilance Cell) Department conveying the approval to initiate a regular enquiry against the petitioners both forest officials posted at B.I(E.O), Assam, Guwahati and the Annexure-14 communication of the same date i.e. 23.07.2014 of the same authority requiring the Additional Director General of Police, B.I (E.O), Assam to release both the petitioners from the B.I (E.O), Assam to facilitate proper enquiry with immediate effect. As indicated in the said communication, there is approval of the Chief Minister in the matter. 2. Referring to the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report dated 28.03.2014, it is the case of the petitioners that on a mere reading of the same, it is evident that there is no material against the petitioners to proceed with a regular enquiry and also requiring their shifti...
Green View Tea and Industries, Assam Vs. The State of Assam, Represent ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The State respondents are represented by the Government Advocate Ms. S. Sarma. The impleaded respondent No.5 is represented by Mr. N. Deka, the learned Counsel. FACTUAL BACKDROP 2. The petitioner is the owner of a Tea Estate (T.E.) in the name and style of the Rajabari T.E. in Golaghat District. The T.E. was purchased by the petitioner from the erstwhile owner, through the registered Sale Deed dated 7.9.1987 (Annexure-I) and the details of the T.E. land is indicated in the 1st Schedule to the Sale Deed. The 2nd Schedule specifies the other assets like bungalows, staff quarters, hospital building, factory building, office building, labour quarters etc. 3. Since the T.E. was in possession of excess land beyond the prescribed ceiling limit, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat in the T.L.C. Case No.38 of 1971-1972 in September 1992 (Annexure-B), passed order under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1...
Md. Jeherul Islam, Assam and Others Vs. The State of Assam, Represente ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
(Oral). 1. All the writ petitions pertaining to selection and appointment of Field Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics under the Government of Assam have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In response to the advertisement that was issued on 08.08.2008 and 22.05.2009, the petitioners along with others had offered their candidatures for the post of Field Assistant. Pursuant to the written test that was conducted on 21.03.2010, the results thereof was published vide Annexure-4, in which the petitioners stood qualified. They were called for the interview (viva-voce test) which was held during the period from 15.11.2010 to 19.11.2010. The results of the selection was published in the newspaper on 26.11.2010 (Annexure-6) followed by the Annexure-7 result sheet dated 30.11.2010. While in Annexure-6 results, only the roll numbers had been indicated, but in Annexure-7 results, the names were also indicated. According to th...
Lakshya Medhi, Assam and Another Vs. The State of Assam and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
(Oral). 1. Both the writ petitions raising the issue relating to appointment as Mandal under the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. Both the petitioners are desirous of appointment as Mandal on the basis of the selection that was conducted in 2009. As would be evident from the minutes of the Selection Board, both the petitioners were provisionally recommended as in their case a clarification in reference to a WT message dated 04/02/2009 was sought for. Both the petitioners are holders of certificate of Survey under Rule 13 of the Assam Land Records Manual. Be it stated here that the provisions thereof are only executive instructions and not statutory rules. As per the said executive instructions (Rule 13), if a person who has not secured a Certificate of Survey, without assistance of any other person in the course of survey actually surveys independently 500 bighas of land and an Officer not below the ...
M/s. G.H. Vijapura and Co. and Others Vs. The State of Assam represent ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in the WP(C) No.1832/2009 and WP(C) NO.4482/2008. The other petitioners are represented by Mr. J. Roy, the learned Counsel. The learned Government Advocate Mr. J. Handique appears for the State respondents. The Airport Authority of India (AAI) is represented by advocate Mr. R. Dubey. The respondent Railways are represented by Ms. B. Devi, the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The issue that requires Courts consideration is whether royalty can be demanded from the contractors for ordinary earth utilized in levelling the low lying areas, in execution of the contracts under the AAI, N.F. Railways and the National Highway authorities. The earth was extracted by the contractors from private patta lands and demand for royalty is made from the contractors and not from the land owners. In 5 cases, [barring the WP(C) No.2177/2066] the work was completed but because of royalty demand, the earnest money is retained by the principal employer e...
Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Guwahati Vs. The State of Assa ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
(Oral). 1. Both the writ petitions by and between the same parties on the issue of entitlement or otherwise the gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Workmen said to be represented by the respondent No. 4 Union have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. While in WP(C) No. 1209/2009 the challenge is to the Annexure-1 communication dated 22/01/2009 addressed to the representative of the petitioner by the Labour Officer, Kokrajhar, the challenge in the other writ petition being WP(C) 467/2009 is to the Annexure-1, Annexure-2, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 letters dated 16/05/2008, 12/09/2008, 05/11/2008 and 18/11/2008 addressed to the representative of the petitioner company by the Labour Officer, Kokrajhar. By the said communications, directions have been issued to the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs. 5,98,752/- and Rs. 1,88,05,011/- (in total) to the workers counted as 28 and 500 respectively. Accord...
Kishore Bhuyan Vs. The State of Assam Represented by the Secretary to ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
(Oral). 1. Having heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Md. Noormohammad, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2,3 and 4, I am of the view that this is a fit case for invoking the provision of FR 18 by the respondent Board. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Marketing Inspector in the year 2000 and joined the service on 17.4.2000 at Baharihat Market Committee. On 16.5.2002, he was transferred from Boharihat Regulated Market Committee to Tinsukia District Regulated Market Committee, which he joined on 28.5.2002. The Secretary, Tinsukia District Regulated Market Committee, Tinsukia issued the order of posting for the petitioner at Chapakhowa Market Centre and directed him to survey the works and enlist the growers of ginger, which he did. According to him, while he was discharging such duties, he developed Neuropsychi...
Kishore Sarma Vs. Sanwarmal Agarwalla
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Heard Mr. A. J. Atia, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sibsagar in Title Appeal No.16 of 1994 arising out of judgment and decree dated 23.09.1994 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sibsagar in Title Suit No.77/1987. By impugned judgment and decree, the first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court which dismissed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment /recovery of arrears. So the short question that 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 so as to admit this appeal for final hearing. I have noticed that this appeal was filed as far back as in the year 2000. For one or other reason in last 14 years it was not heard on the question of admission and remained pending. I have perused the memorandum of appeal file...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »