Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-18-1991
Manisana, J. 1. In this appeal, the question which arises for consideration is whether the appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. Facts, -- A single Judge of this Court dismissed Civil-Revision No. 128 of 1984 on 27-11-90 on merits though the petitioner in the revision was absent. The petitioner filed before the single Judge two applications, one under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. for review of the order of dismissal and the other under Section 151, C.P.C. for restoration of the revision. Both the applications were rejected on 4-1-91 by a composite order in Review Application No. 1 of 1991. Hence this appeal. 3. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has two parts. We are concerned with the first part. The first part, in so far as civil matter is concerned, provides: 'And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court.............fromthe judgment (not being a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-20-1991
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The President of India on November 27, 1990 promulgated Central Rule in the State of Assam. This is the fourth time such a rule was promulgated under the Constitution. First time Assam came under President's Rule on December 12, 1979, on June 20, 1981 for the second time and on March 12, 1982 the President's Rule was imposed for the third time. The declaration on November 27, 1990 thus is the fourth in the series. Along with the Central Rule the Central Government under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 28 of 1958 (the Act of 1958) declared the entire State of Assam a disturbed area as it was in a disturbed or dangerous condition, therefore armed forces were deployed for maintenance of law and order. Ten days later on December 7, 1990 the Governor of Assam declared the State as a disturbed area under the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 19 of 1955 (the 1955 Act). The proclamation of Central Rule and the two notifications under the two enactments are assailed in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Oct-11-1991
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of both Civil Revision No. 83 of 1991 and M.A. (F) No. 20 of 1991.2. The revision petition (Civil Revision No. 83 of 1991) has been filed by the State of Assam under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kokrajhar under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 1988 Act) awarding a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (Sic. Rs. 12,000/-) by way of compensation in respect of permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company, namely, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the claimant were arrayed as the opposite parlies. Notice of motion was issued on them. In response thereto all of them appeared through their respective Counsel. The petitoner, the State of Assam, was represented by Mr. B.B. Narzary, Government Advocate. The owner of the vehicle was represented by Mr. S.N. Bhu...
Tag this Judgment!