Court : Guwahati
D. Biswas, J.1. Received an application filed under Sections 8, 9 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Seen the application and certified copy of the arbitration agreement. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Register an Arbitration Misc. Case under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Seen also the prayer submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act for maintenance of status-quo by way of interim injunction as regards possession of the petitioner's business at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner. On this point, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a very recent decision of the Apex Court AIR 1999 SC 565. It appears that for ends of justice status-quo as regards petitioner's possession at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport Restaurant at Guwahati Airport has to be maintained. Hence, I grant under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
1. This application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has arisen and is directed against the order dated 15.12.187 terminating the services of the applicant as Primary Teacher, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, CRPF, Amerigog. The basic facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this case arc briefly summed up as follows: The applicant was initially appointed in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS for short) as a Primary Teacher on ad hoc basis in July, 1987 and served as such on ad hoc capacity till 31.7.1984. By order dated 12.7.1984 she was appointed as Primary Teacher in the KVS on an initial pay of Rs. 330/- in the scale of Rs. 330-10-350 EB 380-15-500-EB-15-560 on the basis of a selection for appointment of Primary Teachers. On selection, she was posted as Primary Teacher at KVS, Khanapara. The applicant accordingly joined at KVS, Khanapara from where she was transferred to KVS, Amerigog, Guwahati.2. The applicant got married on 2.8.1985 and she con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. The following question of law, under reference has been referred to the High Court at the instance of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. ' 1. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of disallowance made under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on estimated basis ? (2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred on account of repairs to plaint and machinery of Rs. 3,18,214 was for enduring benefit and restoring the order of Assessing Officer in disallowing the said amount on the basis of such conclusion ? 2. In referring the above mentioned questions of law the Tribunal has also drawn a statement of facts of the case. The statement offacts as referred by the Tribunal are as follows :- 'The facts of the case in respect of question No. 1 ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J.1. The following question of law, under reference has been referred to the High Court at the instance of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal.' 1. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of disallowance made under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on estimated basis ? (2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred on account of repairs to plaint and machinery of Rs. 3,18,214 was for enduring benefit and restoring the order of Assessing Officer in disallowing the said amount on the basis of such conclusion ?2. In referring the above mentioned questions of law the Tribunal has also drawn a statement of facts of the case. The statement offacts as referred by the Tribunal are as follows :-'The facts of the case in respect of question No. 1 are tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J.1. C.R.P. Nos. 369, 370, 371, 372, 373 and 362 of 2000, all these raise the same question of law and facts and as such they are taken up for hearing together.2. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned advocate for petitioner in all the revision petitions, Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned senior advocate assisted by Sheikh Muktar as amicus curiae in all the civil revision petitions, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned advocate for the opposite parties in C.R.P. No. 373 of 2000, Mr. A.S. Dasgupta, learned advocate for the opposite party in C.R.P. No. 373 of 2000 and Mr. S.P. Deka, learned Counsel for the opposite party in C.R.P. No. 370 of 2000. Certain claim cases were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Guwahati under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of some persons. These persons admittedly died due to the injuries received in an accident which occurred on 1.11.1998 at Khanapara, Guwahati.2A. The case which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
..... hq suggested that shortage of medicines could be made up by resorting to local purchase when any item was not available through armed forces medical store depot (afmsd in short), lucknow. in respect of the local purchases during the period from september, 1983 to september, 1985, ..... martial proceedings. at any rate it cannot be higher than the jurisdiction of the high court exercised under article 227 against an order of an inferior tribunal. thisbeing the parameter for exercise of power of judicial review against the findings of a competent authority in a court martial proceedings, and applying the same to the impugned judgment of the high ..... its jurisdiction in trying to re-appreciate the evidence.' 15. in the instant case, it cannot be said that there has been infraction of any mandatory provisions of the act prescribing the procedure, or that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice or that the authorities concerned exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
..... evidence. it is true that high court in exercise special jurisdiction does not act as a court of appeal. but it can interfere when there is jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record committed by the tribunal . in the instant case there was no positive finding of the board that the appellant did ..... ng paid by the respondent no. 1 with money provided to her by the backdoor financier and not from disclosed source of finance, has therefore sufficient force' is mere ipse dixit of the board. the boarddid not dispute the financial capability of dimbeswar dutta, father of the appellant as well as rabin baruah, brother ..... fully acquainted and conversant with local situation who is/was statutorily responsible for the settlement, was totally disregarded by the learned board of revenue. the board no less was armed with the appellant power and as such is the highest authority for deciding the question of settlement of liquor shop between the rival claimants. the power of the board is no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. Non-interference by the learned single Judge in the order dated April 2, 1994 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam under Sec-tion 65(2)(iv) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, cancelling the registration of the petitioner-appellant society gave rise to the present appeal. 2. The main question for consideration rallies around the point as to whether it was necessary to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant society before passing the order cancelling its registration or not. 3. We have heard Shri P.K. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants and Shri A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the State. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated April 14, 1994 indicates that as a consequence of an enquiry held under Section 60 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), it appeared to the Registrar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2000Gau35
Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. Non-interference by the learned single Judge in the order dated April 2, 1994 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam under Sec-tion 65(2)(iv) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, cancelling the registration of the petitioner-appellant society gave rise to the present appeal. 2. The main question for consideration rallies around the point as to whether it was necessary to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant society before passing the order cancelling its registration or not. 3. We have heard Shri P.K. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants and Shri A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the State. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated April 14, 1994 indicates that as a consequence of an enquiry held under Section 60 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), it appeared to the Registrar on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
N.S. Singh, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Award dated 31st March, 1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 101 of 1994. Heard Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel for the Appellant and also Mr. K. Bhattacherjee, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows : The Appellant as a claim petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with a petition under Section 140 of the said Act for compensation under no fault liability due to death of her husband, namely, late Pradip Singha caused by a motor accident on 13-3-1994 at about 2.30 p.m. at Taibondal Melaghar when he was driving a motor vehicle bearing registration No. TRL-3089 (Truck). The Opposite Party, respondent No. 1, admitted the accident but contended that the deceased died due to his contributory negligence and the deceased...
Tag this Judgment!