Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court in an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and order of the Family Court disposing of the application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., 1973 is akin to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.2. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. R. K. Nokulsana Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. K. Milan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2, Shri Akham Joykumar Singh.3. The short fact which gives rise to the filing of the present application is that petitioner No. 1, Shri Akham Ibodi Singh, aged about 74 years and petitioner No. 2, Smt. Akham (Ongbi) Chaobi Devi, aged about 71 years are the parents of the respondents. The respondent No. 1, Shri Akham Biradhwaja Singh is the eldest son of the petitioners and he was educated up to M.Sc. (Phys...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners, assisted by Ms. T. Khro and Ms. M. Deb, Advocates, as well as Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel representing APDCL, assisted by Mr. H. K. Sarma and Mr. D. Nath, Advocates. Also heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Advocate General, State of Assam and Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel representing respondent no.5. 2. All the 12 (twelve) writ petitions filed by the same Company are taken up together and concluded by a common judgment and order. The basic facts are 11 pari materia to each other save and except WP(C)5811/2015 and WP(C)5812/2015 which are clothed with certain additional facts requiring findings and decision independent of the other 10 (ten) writ petitions. 3. Invitation for Bids (IFB) for rural electrification works in various districts of Assam was issued by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) during July-August 2014, on being so entrusted to execute the projects by the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (CAV) [1] The basic issue involved in these two writ petitions is as to whether the Governor of a State is to act only with the aid and advice of the council of Ministers in all circumstances or the Governor is empowered being the custodian of an executive and other powers under various Articles of the Constitution of India is entitled to exercise independent/discretionary powers. The other issues including the right of the Governor to address and send messages to the Legislative Assembly was legally permissible in the fact situation involved in this case. The concerned Articles of the Constitution of India in this regard are Article 174 and Article 175. The other issues involved are incidental to the above issues. [2] The background facts involved in this proceeding have seen set out in the interim order passed on 17.12.2015, which reads as follows: BACKDROP 3. The party wise composition of the Arunachal Pradesh State legislature in the 60 member House is Congress-4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order 1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1. 2. This Second appeal is preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 3/2002, affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 15/1979, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 3. The Second appeal was admitted by an order dated 10.01.2007 to be heard on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the finding of the lower Appellate court that the defendants are not tenants as defined in Section 3(17) of the Assam Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy Act 1971, is sustainable inasmuch as the said finding was arrived at on misconstruction of the said provision of law and without considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order(CAV) 1. The main point for determination in this case is whether High Court in exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure can transfer a proceeding pending in one State to another court in another State merely because both the courts are under territorial jurisdiction of the same High Court. Considering the gravity of the point for determination, this court requested Mr. B Banerjee, learned senior counsel who was present in the court to render required assistance as Amicus Curiae and the learned senior counsel readily agreed to the request. 2. I have heard Mr. B Banerjee, learned senior counsel, Amicus Curiae Mr. K Doji for the respondents and Mr. Mr. R Dev on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The facts involved in the present proceeding is that opposite party Biswajit Sengupta who is a permanent resident of Tinsukia at present residing at Tezu in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in course of his employment. He married the petitioner herein on 17.4.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No. 3/2007 and Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No. 11/2007. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. RSA No. 3/2007 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 17/2001 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 88/1997. RSA No. 11/2007 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.6.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 15/2001 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 88/1997. 3. RSA No. 3/2007 i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1 (returned candidate) and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 1/election petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel for Election Commission of India. 2. This is an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of the election petition for want of cause of action and for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act). 3. Rejection of the election petition has been sought for primarily on three grounds. Firstly, the election petition does not disclose material facts to constitute a cause of action to warrant trial of the election petition. Secondly, the prayer made in the election petition is beyond the relief which can be granted to an election petitioner under the Act. Thirdly, since the election ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(Oral). 1. The petitioners presently working in Assam Agricultural University have filed this writ petition challenging the Annexure-2 advertisement dated 27/06/2014 inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor, Assam Agriculture University. For a ready reference, the said advertisement is quoted below :- APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHANCELLOR OF ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Selection Committee constituted by the Governor of Assam and Chancellor of Assam Agricultural University (AAU) vide GSA.90/2008/169 dated 19/05/2014, invites applications for the post of Vice Chancellor, Assam, Agricultural University, from eminent scientists, academicians and administrators with background of Agriculture, Veterinary and Fishery Education, Research and Extension with ten years experience and proven leadership and administrative capabilities as provided for in the Assam Agricultural University Act 1968. The tenure for the post of Vice Chancellor is 5(five) years subject to the maximum age as is pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K.Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.A.C.Buragohain, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents No.1 and 3 as well as Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. The writ petition has been placed before the Full Bench consequent upon an order passed by the Honble the Chief Justice following an order dated 5.3.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court. The question which requires answer by the Full Bench is:- Whether the orders passed by the IMDT ceased to exist after declaration of Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 as unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920? In other words, whether such proceedings, which had already been decided by the IMDT prior to such declaration, have to be decided by the Foreigners Tribunal afresh? 3. At the outset, it will be rele...
Tag this Judgment!