Court : Guwahati
ranjan gogoi, j.1. in a vernacular daily 'ajir dainik batori' published from guwahati dated 10.8.2005, the following news item (translated version) was published:even hon'ble judge is in himanta biswa's grip.sensational appeal in gauhati high court staff reporterguwahati, august 9,-ap.i.l filed in the gauhati high court which is a testimony (testify) how himanta biswa sarma, minister of the state for finance, planning and agriculture, assam, who has gradually become impudent because of blind support from chief minister tarun gogoi, is trying to corrupt (desecrate)even the interior of hon'ble court, has vigorously shaken the conscious section of the people in the state. according to a copy of this petition that has reached us this tainted young minister not only caused disappearance of the records of two serious cases registered at chandmari ps but was also been able to misguide a judge by his political influence. as per information that have reached us, a case was registered against himanta biswa sarma, then a student, at panbazar p.s. on 12.1.91 for offences punishable under section (i)(a) of arms act, and under sections 3 and 4 of tada 1987, for having collected a huge amount of money in the name of ulfa.the number of this case was 15 on the other hand, on march 28 of the same year a case was registered against him at chandmari p.s. for offences punishable under sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1987 and under tada on the basis of an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
b.k. sharma, j.1. the petitioner, who was in a provincialized service of a school as assistant teacher (classical/sanskrit) has assailed the legality and validity of the order communicating the decision towards acceptance of resignation from service tendered by him.2. the petitioner is an m.a. in sanskrit. he was appointed as an assistant teacher (classical/sanskrit) in rangsina high school, langmopi in the district of karbi anglong on 24.1.1995. the school was provincialized with effect from 1.4.1996 and the services of the petitioner was also provincialized against the allotted post of assistant teacher. it appears that while the petitioner was serving in the school, some differences between him and the headmistress of the school i.e., the respondent no. 5, who incidentally is the wife of the respondent no. 6, who is also the headmaster of m.e. section of the said school. apart from the allegation that the petitioner was not paid his salary from 23.5.1998, he also made the allegations that even prior to that, he was deprived of his salary for few months. he had intimated the matter to the jurisdictional inspector of schools, who in turn, instructed the respondent no. 5 to release the salary of the petitioner. such instruction was furnished by annexure-ii letter dated 3.5.1998.3. according to the petitioner, he was forced to sign a purported resignation letter resigning from the service on 22.5.1998. as per the statements made in the writ petition, he was forced to do so by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
ram labhaya, j.1. this order shall dispose of first appeals nos. 12 and 13 of 1952. messrs. radhakishen bhagawati prasad are the appellants in doth these appeals. these appeals arise from two suits, nos. 35 and 36 of 1949, instituted by messrs. radhakishen bhagawati prasad, appellants. both the suits were dismissed. suit no. 36 of 1949 has given rise to appeal no. 12 of 1952, and suit no. 35 of 1949 has led to appeal no. 13 of 1952.in suit no. 38, the plaintiffs claimed a sum of rs. 7,401/- from the union of india. the plaintiffs asserted that they were endorsees for value of invoice no. 10 b009391, dated 27-9-1948. by this receipt, a consignment of 'jogree' was booked from shamli railway station on s. s. light railway to tinsukia. the consignment consisted of 216 bags weighing 426 maunds. it was further stated that the consignment should have been delivered on 27th october in the ordinary course. it was not delivered.notices under section 80, c. p. c. and section 77 of the indian railways act were served, and as no redress could be obtained, the suit was instituted for recovery of the amount due. the amount claimed includes compensation for the loss caused to the plaintiffs for non-delivery of the consignment at the due date. the defendant denied responsibility, stating specifically in paragraph 5 of the written statement, that there was nothing to show that the consignment was lost on any of the railways owned by the defendant.in suit no. 35 also the plaintiffs claimed to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
u.l. bhat, j. 1. the revision petitioner is the plaintiff. he filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. an order of injunction was passed in his favour and that was vacated after hearing the defendants. this was on 19-9-85. the plaintiff filed an application to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit since according to him the defendants after the injunction was vacated, trespassed into the property and reduced into his possession on 20-9-85. the court dismissed the application. thereafter the plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint seeking to substitute the prayer for decree for permanent injunction by a prayer for recovery of possession. the lower court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff was out of possession on the date of the suit and should have sued for possession and not injunction in the original plaint, that the question of dispossession during the pendency does not arise and the amendment, if allowed, would convert it into a new suit. that would prejudice the defendants. this order is now challenged. 2. rule 17 of order 6, civil procedure code empowers the court, at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. the rule also indicates that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
b.p. katakey, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), north tripura, kailashahar in money suit no. 2 of 2003 directing that the question of territorial jurisidiction raised by the defendant revision-petitioner shall be decided at the time of final hearing after taking evidence from both the sides.2. the fact leading to the filing of the present revision petition is that the respondent here in filed money suit no. 2 of 2003 against the petitioner here-in as defendant in the court of civil judge (senior division), north tripura, kailashahar prating for passing a decree for rs. 4,30,000 along with further compensation @ 18% per annum against the outstanding dues/debts payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, stating, inter alia, therein that the defendant issued a cheque dated 18.2.2000 in favour of the plaintiff on state bank of india, kailashahar branch amounting to rs. 4,30,000, which cheque was bounced on 2.6.2000. it has further been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff also instituted a criminal case in the court of the learned chief judicial magistrate, agartala, west tripura under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act read with section 420 of indian penal code, which was registered as c.r. case no. 2344 of 2000. the defendant (revision-petitioner), on receipt of the summons, entered appearance and filed an application under section 21 of the code of civil procedure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
b.p. saraf, j. 1. the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 25,715/- by way of compensation on account of damage caused to his vehicle while it was under requisition with the officers of the government of assam for election duty. in the suit, the chief secretary to the government of assam was named as defendant no. 1, besides the magistrate and sub-divisional officer (election branch), barpeta who requisitioned the vehicle, the chief election officer, assam, the election officer, barpeta for whose duty it was requisitioned and the new india assurance company limited with whom the vehicle was insured. they were made defendants nos. 2 to 5. before filing the suit, the plaintiff through his advocate served a notice under section 80 of the civil procedure code on the chief secretary to the government of assam and other defendants. 2. the suit was contested by the defendants. the defendants nos. 1 to 4 in their written statement pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under section 80, c.p.c. and for non-compliance of the requirement under section 79 of the civil procedure code. it was claimed by the defendants that the vehicle at the time of the accident was under the possession of plaintiff through his employees and not with the 'government' and that the alleged damage was caused due to wrongful acts and rash and negligent driving of his employees and, as such, the defendants were not liable to pay any compensation. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
u.b. saha, j.1. the appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1998 passed by the learned additional district judge (court no. 3), west tripura, agartala in title appeal no. 45 of 1996 whereby and whereunder, the learned additional district judge dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree dated 2-5-1996 and 9-5-1996 respectively passed by the learned civil judge, junior division, agartala, west tripura in t.s. 239 of 1983 wherein the suit was partly allowed and accordingly decreed.2. heard mr. k.n. bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by mr. s. acherjee, learned counsel for the appellants and mr. s.m. chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by mr. s. bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.3. the following facts need to be noticed for proper understanding of the controversy between the parties:the appellants as plaintiffs filed the title suit no. 239 of 1983 in the court of munslff, which was subsequently designated as civil judge, jr. division, agartala, west tripura, for declaration of title over the suit land of schedule-a and also for declaration as bargadar in the suit land of schedule-b and for a decree of perpetual injunction on the plea that one kshirode ch. sen and his brothers were the original owner of jote no. 19 of mouja-malaynagar under sadar tahshil and the said kshirode ch. sen sold out the suit land to one kalipada chakraborty who again sold out .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
..... joshi submits that the cement plant is quite different from the existing coke plant and conversion of the existing plant to a cement plant is nothing but an establishment of a new plant and if it is a new plant, the amount of any expenditure to make such an establishment will be capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure. ..... saraf, learned counsel, on the other hand, submits that the assessee-companys aim is to convert the plant with the existing machinery without much disturbing the existing superstructure and the machinery. ..... , to submit a feasibility report for converting the existing coke kiln to a cement plant without making any disturbances of the existing plant and for that purpose obtaining the feasibility report the assessee-company defrayed expenses of rs. ..... but for some reasons, the assessee-company found that the said calcination plant at budge budge was not going well since 1979, and the assessee-company explored the possibility of manufacturing of cement. ..... therefore, the amount spent was nothing but for improvement or the conversion of the existing plant to a cement plant without making any violation to the existing machinery and superstructure. ..... learned counsel further submits that it is not possible to convert the existing coke plant to a cement plant without making addition of new machinery. ..... 1,38,000 incurred by the assessee for obtaining a feasibility report for converting coke plant to a cement plant is not a capital expenditure is sustainable in law ?2. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
..... joshi submits that the cement plant is quite different from the existing coke plant and conversion of the existing plant to a cement plant is nothing but an establishment of a new plant and if it is a new plant, the amount of any expenditure to make such an establishment will be capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure. ..... saraf, learned counsel, on the other hand, submits that the assessee-company's aim is to convert the plant with the existing machinery without much disturbing the existing superstructure and the machinery. ..... , to submit a feasibility report for converting the existing coke kiln to a cement plant without making any disturbances of the existing plant and for that purpose for obtaining the feasibility report the assessee-company defrayed expenses of rs. ..... but for some reasons, the assessee-company found that the said calcination plant at budge budge was not going well since 1979, and the assessee-company explored the possibility of manufacturing of cement. ..... therefore, the amount spent wa's nothing but for improvement or the conversion of the existing plant to a cement plant without making any violation to the existing machinery and superstructure. ..... , 1961, the following two questions have been referred for opinion of this court ; ' 1, whether the tribunal's finding that the expenditure of rs, 1,38,000 incurred by the assessee for obtaining a feasibility report for converting coke plant to a cement plant is not a capital expenditure is sustainable in law ? .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
s.n. phukan, j. 1. this revision petition under s, 115 read with section 151, cpc is by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-86 of the first appellate court viz. asstt. district judge, tezpur in title appeal no. 14 of 1983 dismissing the appeal by the present petitioner and up-holding the decree for ejetment passed by the learned munsiff no. 2 tezpur in title suit no. 9 of 1980. 2. there is no dispute that the present petitioner-defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rent of rs. 50/- plus rs. 5/- per month as electric charge and the tenancy was according to english calendar month. plaintiff has alleged that the monthly rent of rs. 55/- was payable on the 1st day of each following month according to english calendar month. plaintiff started a shop in the suit premises. according to plaintiff after april, 1979, the defendant did not pay any rent and became a defaulter. it' has also been pleaded that the suit room is required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation. thereafter a notice of ejectment dated 27-12-79 was issued by the plaintiff on the defendant asking him to quit and vacate with effect from 1-2-80. the claim for arrears of rent due till the month of january, 1980 was put forward in the notice and the relationship of the landlord and tenant with effect from 1-2-80 was terminated. as the suit premises was not vacated the present suit was filed praying for a decree for ejectment of the defendant and also .....
Tag this Judgment!