Guwahati Court August 2015 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.
Pertabghur Tea Estate Vs. Hiren Bhumji and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
Heard Mr. K Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner/management and Mr. A Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/workman. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the management for quashing of the award on preliminary issue, passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, on 30.03.2015, in Ref. Case No.1/2010. By the award on preliminary issue, dated 30.03.2015, the learned Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against the workman (respondent No.1 herein) was not valid and accordingly, decided to hear the management by adducing of evidence to justify its action of dismissal of the workman. Basic facts relevant for adjudication of the case may be briefly noted. Petitioner is the management of a tea estate, called Pertabghur Tea Estate . Respondent No.1 was a workman of the petitioner. On 31.05.2003, a show cause notice was issued to him by the management charging him with committing misconduct inasmuc...
Saj Begum Vs. The Assam Board of Revenue at Guwahati and Others
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
Judgment and Order (Oral): 1. Heard Mr. B. Ullah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The legal heirs of late Tafazzul Islam Saikia (respondent No.3) are represented by the learned counsel Mr. Z. Mukit. The learned Govt. advocate Mr. J. Handique appears for the Addl. D.C., Lakhimpur (respondent No.2). 2. The petitioner is the youngest and unmarried daughter of late Tafazzul Islam Saikia, who was the owner of land measuring 4 kathas 7 lechas covered by Dag No.917 of K.P. Patta No.82 of 1st Part Map of North Lakhimpur Town of Lakhimpur Mouza. A portion of this land measuring 336 sq.ft. encompassing 2 rooms plus 12 x 9 veranda was orally gifted by the father in the year 1991 and the petitioner accepted the gift and took possession of the gifted property. In the gifted premises, the daughter started a tailoring establishment under the name and style Farnaz Fashion and Designer . Subsequently the father acknowledged the oral gift, through written document executed on 01.11.199...
The Workman represented by the Secretary Vs. The Management of Dufflat ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
Judgment and Order (Oral): 1. Heard Ms. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner union i.e. Assam Chah Mazdoor Karmachari Sangha which is espousing the cause of the delinquent clerk Pulak Chandra Borthakur of the Dufflating T.E. The management is represented by the learned counsel Mr. A. Sarma. 2. While serving as a garden clerk in the Dufflating T.E., a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 20.8.2011 (Annexure-1) but this notice was discarded and eventually the charge memo was issued on 21.9.2001 (Annexure-3), where 21 charges were leveled against the workman, where it was alleged that the garden clerk was responsible for preparing the attendance record, plucking accounts and payment of wages for the workers engaged during the tea plucking session and the substance of the charge was that the attendance records were manipulated to illegally show presence of absentee workers and thereby payment were shown to have been made to them in the wage r...
RNT Plantations Limited (Owner : Lukwah Tea Estate A/c. Sola Chah Bagi ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-18-2015
Judgment and Order (Oral): 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2673/2014 and W.P.(C) No. 2269/2014 and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2266/2014. I have also heard Mr. Sheikh Noor Mohammad, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These three writ petitions raise common questions of law based on more or less similar facts, and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. In fact, all the writ petitions had been clubbed together for hearing in the cause-list. 3. The question that has arisen for consideration is as follows: If an award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short, the Act of 1894, had not been passed prior to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for short, the Act of 2013, whether the award has to be pa...
Mustt. Forida Khatun Vs. The Union of India, represented by the Minist ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-18-2015
Judgement and Order (Oral): 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel and so also Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 2. The matter pertains to the opinion rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in case No. FT (C) 833/2006 (Police reference No. 401/2000) (Sate of Assam Vs. Mustt. Farida Khatun). By the said order, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner as she failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. As will be evident from the impugned order, all the documents submitted by the petitioner were only photocopies. Needless to say that such photocopies of documents are inadmissible in evidence. That apart, as discussed in the impugned order and also discernible from the evidence on record, the petitioner herself stated that the house of her fath...
No.90006506 CT Gajen Gara Goyary Vs. The Union of India, Represented b ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-18-2015
Judgement and Order (Oral): 1. Heard Mr. S. Chouhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Ms. A. Gayan, the learned Central Govt. Counsel (CGC). 2. The petitioner was a Constable in the 57th Battalion of the Border Security Force (BSF) and while he was on Naka duty along with Head Constable Dwarika Prasad, both members of the G Coy Unit were placed under suspension by the Commandant of the 57th Battalion of the BSF Patiram (WB), by the order dated 7.6.2007 (Annexure-A). According to the suspension order, the two BSF men had facilitated crossing of 15 cattle to Bangladesh at about 3:00 Hrs. on 7.6.2007 by opening the Fencing Gate No.19. 3. A Court of Inquiry (COI) was constituted to investigate into the circumstances of the cattle crossing over to Bangladesh and before the Inquiry Officer, the delinquent constable stated that it was the Head Constable Dwarika Prasad who opened the Gate and it was further stated by him that the Head Constable had him...
Mihir Bala Saha @ Mihir Bala Mondol and Others Vs. Chandra Nath Saha a ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
1. Heard Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs, on admission of the Second Appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Mr. Dey, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only substantial question of law, which, according to him has arisen in the facts of this case is as to whether the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court is a judgment in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. According to him, in case of a judgment of reversal, it is incumbent on the part of the learned Lower Appellate Court to independently assess the evidence on record and, then, to record its conclusion. Learned Senior counsel submits that same is not the case herein as the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court would go to show. 3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Sri Manindra Mohan Saha, who filed the suit praying for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit lan...
Hage Kobing Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by the Chi ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
Judgment and Order (Cav): 1) Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, along with Mr. D. Lazi, learned counsels for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Pubi Pangu, learned Govt. Advocate for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Tony Pertin with Mr. P. Bui, Mr. K. Saxena and other learned counsels for the private Respondent Nos. 8 to 17. 2) The petitioner is one of the elected Zilla Parishad Member (ZPM, in short) out of 14 (fourteen) ZPMs of Lower Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh, elected through democratic process in April 2013 and on being elected he is serving as Chairperson of Zilla Parishad of Lower Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh. 3) A group of 10 (ten) ZPMs of Lower Subansiri District on 10-07-2015 served a written notice under Section 63 (1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1997 on the Member Secretary of the said Zilla Parishad with the intention to move No Confidence Motion against the petitio...
Gopal Ch. Kalita Vs. The Union of India, Through the Secretary to the ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
Judgement and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. D.C. Borah, the learned Central Govt. Counsel (CGC). 2. The petitioner is a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and at the relevant time, his Unit was deployed with the ONGC, Nazira. He was detailed for shift duty at Cable PTL at the DSAB Rig from 1700 2100 Hrs. on 17.12.2005 and from 0500 0900 Hrs on 18.12.2005. Soon after his 2nd shift duty was over at 9 A.M., the theft of 30 meter length power cable was detected from the patrolling area and the lock in the lube oil store was also found broken for an attempted theft. Consequently a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up on 30.12.2005 (Annexure-1) under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the CISF Rules ). The constable was charged with gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and dereliction of duty under the following imputation:...
Prakash Kalita Vs. The State of Assam, Through the Commissioner and Se ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
Judgement and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. UK Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Govt. Advocate. The private respondent No.3 is represented by the learned Advocate Dr. B. Ahmed. 2. This case pertains to an inter se seniority dispute in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the Municipal Administration Department and consequential promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner challenges the exclusive direct recruit Gradation List of 28.3.2006 (Annexure-L), where the respondent No.3 is shown in the 1st place and the petitioner who is a promotee Assistant Engineer is altogether excluded. He also challenges the 2nd Gradation List of 28.3.2006 (Annexure-L1), where the name of the lone promotee Assistant Engineer is reflected. Thus there is no combined seniority list of all the serving Assistant Engineers (promotee and direct recruits) in the Department. The respondent No.3 was allowed to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »