Court : Guwahati
Katakey, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2014 passed in WP(C) No.7036/2005, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 2, directed the State Government as well as the Superintendent of Police, City, Guwahati, to apprehend them along with their children (appellant Nos.3 and 4) and keep them in detention camp till they are deported to Bangladesh. The learned Single Judge has also directed the respondents to deport them to Bangladesh immediately by observing that the criminal proceeding launched under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (in short the 1946 Act) against them will be of no consequence after lapse of many years of institution. 2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 filed a writ petition, registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7036/2005, praying for a direction to the respondents to consider their applications filed under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (in shor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV). 1. What procedure to be adopted by the learned Sessions courts for conducting trial of cases registered on the basis of complaints lodged by the Customs and Revenue Departments under NDPS Act i.e., cases instituted otherwise than on police report. 2. The aforesaid legal issue cropped-up while hearing the instant bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by one of the accused seeking regular bail in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 208(K) of 2004, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arising out of DRI Case No. 1 of 2004 under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act). During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the accused is in judicial custody since last more than 5(five) years. When it came to light of the court that the case is pending for disposal since last one decade the court became inquisitive to a...
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 respondent Nos.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 v. 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 r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. The order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff, Margherita in Title Suit No. 17/2007 is in challenged in Civil Revision Petition No. 150/2013 aforesaid and the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff, Margherita in Misc (J) Case No. 12/2010 (in TS No. 16/2007) is in challenged in Civil Revision Petition No. 159/2013. 2. By both the impugned orders aforesaid, the learned Munsiff refused to accept the counter claims filed by the respective defendants (present petitioners), in the said title suits. 3. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Md. Aslam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners/ defendants in both the revision petiutions. Also heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs in both the cases. 4. By the impugned orders, aforesaid, the learned Munsiff, Margherita rejected the prayers, made by the petitioners for accepting their counter claims in T.S. No. 16/2007 (Misc....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. The order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff, Margherita in Title Suit No. 17/2007 is in challenged in Civil Revision Petition No. 150/2013 aforesaid and the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff, Margherita in Misc (J) Case No. 12/2010 (in TS No. 16/2007) is in challenged in Civil Revision Petition No. 159/2013. 2. By both the impugned orders aforesaid, the learned Munsiff refused to accept the counter claims filed by the respective defendants (present petitioners), in the said title suits. 3. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Md. Aslam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners/ defendants in both the revision petiutions. Also heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs in both the cases. 4. By the impugned orders, aforesaid, the learned Munsiff, Margherita rejected the prayers, made by the petitioners for accepting their counter claims in T.S. No. 16/2007 (Misc....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Respondent No.3 is represented by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Dasgupta. The State-Respondents are represented by Ms.B. Dutta, the learned Govt. Advocate. The Kanchi Sankara Health and Educational Foundation (Sri Sankardeva Nethralaya) (hereinafter referred to as the Management) challenges the Award dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure-13 in the Reference Case No.2/2006 rendered by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, whereby the termination of the Respondent No.3 with one months Notice was held to be illegal and consequential direction was issued to reinstate the Respondent as the Senior Consultant (Anesthesiologist) with 50% Back Wages. The Petitioner contended that the Sr. Anesthesiologist in the Sankardeva Nethralaya cannot be considered as Workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) and on that basis, the declaration made by the learned Labour Court is challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has challenged the and order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Criminal Revision No.37(3) of 2012 affirming the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tinsukia, in N.I.Case No.2071C/2006. 2. The brief facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision, are that the respondent as the complainant instituted N.I.Case No.2071C/06 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument, Act,1881, for short, Act, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in respect of dishonour of a cheque dated 18.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- issued in favour of the complainant and on being presented on that day itself, the cheque was returned with a memo containing the endorsement, insufficient fund in the account of the accused person. A notice of demand was issued under section 138 of the Act and even af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. The petitioner, who has been declared to be a foreigner (illegal Bangladeshi migrant) by the Foreigners Tribunal III, Barpeta, Assam, vide order dated 22/01/2013 in FT Case No. 69 (III)/2012 (Ref. IMDT Case No. 724(A)/98 (State of Assam Vs. Rahim Ali), has filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order. 2. As has been claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner, son of Husen Ali @ Husen Nessa @ Husen @ Hussain Ali, is a citizen of India, by birth. Referring to the voter list of 1965, 1970, 1985 and 1997, it is the case of the petitioner that his fathers name along with his mother appeared in the voter lists of 1965, 1970, 1985 and 1997. The petitioner has also referred to the Special Family Identify Card stated to be in the name of his father. He has also referred to the copy of the Jamabandi in respect of the particular land purportedly recording the name of his father vide order dated 22/01/1991. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the grandson of Tamuj Al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. The challenge in the writ petition filed by six petitioners is the Annexure-K notification dated 19.09.2013 of the Cotton College State University (respondent No.3), by which on the basis of the purported clarifications given by the University Grants Commission (UGC) vide public notice dated 27.06.2013, has cancelled the admission of the petitioners to the MCA Degree Programme under the University. For a ready reference, the impugned notification is reproduced below:- The University Grants Commission (UGC), vide its public notice no., F.27-1/2012 (CPP-II) dated 27th June, 2013 has clarified that a central or State Government University can conduct courses through its own departments, its constituent colleges and/or through its affiliated Colleges and also a university established or incorporated by or under a State act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location. Beside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30.04.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. IV, FTC, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 114(K)/2012. 2. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for eight years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, suffer RI for three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, as may be required for disposal of this appeal is as follows: On 01.12.2011, at about 8 A.M., when the victim girl, who was staying in the house of the informant, had gone towards the nearby Panchayat Office for disposing garbage into a ditch, the appellant, finding her alone, grabbed her and committed rape. 4. The informant, coming to know about the incident from the victim girl, lodged an FIR ...
Tag this Judgment!