Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.8.2002, passed in WP(C) No. 62/2000, the writ petition has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has, now, preferred the present appeal.2. Can the terms and conditions of the service of a Government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? If so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers Will the power to amend the conditions of service rertospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to the Government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced Whether the writ of mandamus, issued in a given case, can be superseded by the Government and if so, how and what extent What was the real question, which the WP(C) No. 62/2000, had raised for determin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarma, J. 1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), namely Misc. Appeal (F) 37 and Misc. Appeal (F) 38 of 1968, arising out of Motor Accident Claims Cases Nos. 99 and 100, respectively, of 1966. which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6-6-1968 by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Noweong. 2. The above two claims cases arose out of the same accident in which six persons travelling in a bus bearing No. ASA 3482 belonging to M/s. National Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) were killed, the bus being knocked off by the engine of a running train while crossing the railway lines at Noonmati Railway level crossing. The bus was engaged at that time by the B. O. C. (Pipe Line) Ltd. for transporting some of its employees residing in Gauhati town to and from their residence during the lunch hour and all the six victims were such employees. 3. It may be mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lahiri, J.1. In this appeal, the sole point urged before us is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ' the Tribunal', for short, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short ' the Act ', had no power to award 'interest' on compensation in a proceeding under Section 110 of the Act. No other point has been urged.2. The respondent lost his son aged about 23 years in a motor accident as far back as on May 16, 1965, and lodged his claim for compensation on May 23, 1965. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000 with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the compensation. The insurer, a nationalised insurance company, a public institution, has waged a battle, and questioned the payment of a paltry amount. The battle is 'uneven'--a public institution v. a private individual. Public bodies should resist the temptation of litigation like a cantankerous litigant for an insignificant amount raising tec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. Biswas, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Dutta Baura and Company is a partnership firm. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director and Sree Guru Press is a unit therefore. In order to modernize and upgrade the Press, the petitioners approached the Assam Financial Corporation for financial assistance. Against a sum of Rs. 11,75 lakhs sanctioned, the petitioners were paid Rs. 9,37,151.41 only. Because of delay in the disbursement and inadequacy thereof, the petitioner could not purchase all the machineries required for the upgrading the press. The entire project, therefore, remained a non-starter. Even then, the petitioners repaid Rs. 6,91,113.32 out of which Rs. 7,21,936.80 was adjusted against interest and Rs. 2,39,171.52 against principal. In the month of June, 1999, the AFC served a copy of the notice under Section 29 of the Act of 1951 for taking over the management reserving right to transfer the mortgaged property by way of sale of lease. 2. The petitioner challenged the af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. Biswas, J.1. Both the writ petitions have been taken up together for disposal.2. The vires of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986 and Rule 2(f) of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Rules, 1988 are in challenge in Civil Rule No. 1027 of 1994. Civil Rule No. 1110 of 1994 has been filed for adjustment/refund of the amount of tax already paid.3. Section 4 of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986 and Rule 2(f) of the Rules framed therein are quoted below :'Section 4 : Certificate of authorisation.--(1) A person undertaking to manufacture in the State such goods, as may be prescribed, may make an application in the prescribed form to the prescribed authority and within the prescribed time for a certificate of authorisation for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 3.(2) If the authority to whom an application is made under Sub-section (1) is satisfied that the application is in conformity with the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ883Gau
T. Nandkumar Singh, J.1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated July 25, 2007, allowing the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 12/2005 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner assailing the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner vide Memorandum dated December 8, 1999, the order dated March 28, 2003 inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service on him and the order dated August 16, 2004 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the departmental appeal filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and thereby interfering with the impugned order for dismissal and its confirmation by the appellate authority vide order dated August 16, 2004 only on the ground of contravention of Clause 4 of Annexure-II to the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter refers to as 'MOU.') dated April 10, 2002 and allowed the disciplinary authority to act in terms of the said clause in a matter as comprehended therein as soon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. To understand and appreciate the challenge made in the instant writ petition, a brief recapitulation of the facts is considered necessary. The petitioner who was working as a Grade VIII employee in Oil India Limited and posted at -the relevant point of time at Narengi, Guwahati was sought to be transferred by an order dated December 22, 1989 to Dumar in Bihar. The aforesaid transfer order was by way of promotion. The Union representing the writ petitioner took up the case protesting the aforesaid transfer and subsequently, a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was signed by and between the parties on August 7, 1990. In terms of the aforesaid settlement, it was agreed that the management of the Oil India Limited would not force the workman to go on transfer on promotion in case the workman was ready to forego the: promotion. The petitioner thus continued to be stationed at Narengi until sometime in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI) to terminate the insurance agency of the petitioner is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by Annexure-'C order dated 10.8.2005 terminating his service as an insurance agent with the further stipulation that he would also forfeit all future renewal commission and other benefits, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.2. The petitioner, while was working under the LICI as its agent with Agency Code No. 559/486, North Lakhimpur Branch, was issued with Annexure 'A' show cause notice dated 9th November, 1999 asking him to show cause as to why his agency would not be terminated. Show cause notice was issued under Regulation 8 and 16 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972 as empowered under schedule-I of Regulation 3(1)(e). The allegation made in the show cause notice was that the petitioner failed to discharge his function...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A. HAZARIKA, J1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.1.1997 passed in Money Suit No. 108 of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit in the court of Assistant District Judge at Nagaon for realisation of Rs. 6,13,596 and for payment of interest @ 18% per annum till payment of the decretal sum, with cost of the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, as averred in the plaint is that he was running the Chaparmukh Rice Mill, being the owner, which comprises the mill buildings and premises alongwith stock of mill were insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the defendant at Nagaon Branch, Haiborgaon, Assam bearing policy No. 130101/11/02989 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 which was valid from 1.3.89 to 28.2.90 upto 4. P.M. The said policy covered risks including flood and inundation amongst others.The plaintiff-ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. By this writ petition, the writ petitioner, 1 who is an unfortunate widow, is assailing the decision of the Manager (PS/SSS/Claims) vide letter dated 23.12.1996 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) to the writ petitioner, wherein Life Insurance Corporation of India had denied the claim of the petitioner for the sum assured amounting to Rs. 1 lakh under the Policy No. 490445746 through Churachandpur Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India and also the order/letter dated 4.11.1998 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) for upholding the repudiation of the said claim for the sum assured by the Silchar Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India.2. Heard Mr. S.T. Kom, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. Gogonchandra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. A short factual matrix of the petitioner's case leading to the filing of the present writ petition is required to be recapitulated for deciding the matter in issue...
Tag this Judgment!