Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order [Cav] R.K. Phukan, J. 1. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and also Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent. 2. This present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 118/2008 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him SI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine, SI for one year. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 2.5.2008 at around 8 PM, the accused appellant inflicted cut injury on the neck of the his elder brother Krishna Gogoi by means of sharp weapon and as a result, Krishna Gogoi succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital. One Sri Narayan Bora/brother-in-law of the deceased lodged an FIR before the O/C Merapani P.S. on the next day of occurrence. Accordingly, Merapani P.S. Case No. 47/2008 was registered under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Two second appeals based on common facts are listed together and are analogously heard. Except for two separate plots under same dag and patta of same mouza, all other facts are same. Even one set of residence was let by the plaintiff for his two identical suits while defendant has no evidence at all to rely in either case. Decision in one second appeal, therefore, would cover the other second appeal. RSA No. 22/2006 is argued by the learned counsel for both sides as lead case. It is accordingly decided. 2. In this second appeal, the defendant has challenged the judgment of reversal passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 32/2004. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit against which the plaintiff preferred title appeal and the same was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree. Aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this appeal. Admitting the second appeal on 07.04.2006, this Court framed the following substantial question of law:- Whether the learned A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order [Cav] 1. Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. B. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Criminal Appeal Case No. 2(1)/2004 dismissing the appeal upholding the judgment and order dated 30.12.2003, passed by the learned SDJM, Charaideo, Sonari in G.R. Case No. 405/1994 convicting the petitioner U/S 392 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default, furher rigorous imprisonment for another three months. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that one Khagendra Prasad Bharali, the Manager of Bortiman Tea Estate lodged an written ejahar, stating interalia that on 20.8.1994, at about 11.45 AM while there employee W.B. Swear, Deputy Manager of the garden, and other employee Shri Bulbul Shyam and Deep Singh after taking garden remittance of Rs. 2,31,000/- keeping...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Cav) Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. HK Das, Advocate, representing the respondent. 2. The legality and validity of the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter alluded to as the Tribunal ) in OA 351/2012 is put to challenge by the State of Assam. 3. The sole respondent Sri Mamat Kalita is from the batch of officers of the 1978-80 State Forest Service (Assam). The issue primarily revolves round promotion with regard to the members of the State Forest Service to the Assam segment of IFS Joint Cadre of Assam-Meghalaya. OA 351/2013 was instituted by the respondent challenging the Order dated 26.6.2012 of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department declining request for review of the ACRs for the period 24.11.1999 to 31.3.2001. 4. Facts necessary to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. JC Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Saikia, the learned standing counsel for the Finance (Taxation) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 4. But none appears for the M/s. Nilachal Chemical (P) Ltd. (respondent No.5), who were impleaded on 7.1.2015. 2. The petitioner produces Sodium Silicate which is used as an ingredient in manufacture of soap, detergent, cement and other such products. They claim that Sodium Silicate should be subjected to tax @4% under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the the VAT Act ), by treating it as industrial input under Part- C of IInd Schedule of the VAT Act. With such contention, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.1.2006 (Annexure-C), whereby the Commissioner of Taxes, on the application of the Nilachal Chemical (P) Ltd. (respondent No.5) noted that Sodium Silicate is an unspecified item, which is not covered by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Cav) Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel representing the Co-operation Department. Having regard to the issues for determination, service of notice upon the remaining respondents is not deemed necessary. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. To traverse the facts briefly, the appellant/writ petitioner i.e. Sri Rupak Barman had joined the Gauhati Co-operative Bank Ltd. in the year 1991 as Assistant Cashier and continued as such until he retired from service. The appellant was constrained to institute WP(C) 5122/2015 challenging two orders/letters issued by the Gauhati Co-operative Urban Bank (hereinafter alluded to as the Bank ) dated 1.6.2015 and 31.7.2015. By the former letter dated 1.6.2015 the appellant was informed that he would retire from service on 2.8.2015 on attaining the age of 58 years on that date. He was reque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M. Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Mrs. B Goyal, learned counsel representing the State respondents. 2. Challenge is made to the order dated 25.1.2016 passed in WP(C) 46/2016. Brief facts appearing is that the appellant while discharging function as the President of Hatipara Gaon Panchayat was confronted with a Requisition Notice submitted by 8 members of the said Gaon Panchayat expressing want of confidence in him. The said Requisition Notice dated 8.12.2015 was made under Section 15(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. On 14.12.2015, the fact of the Requisition Notice was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. 3. The appellant preferred WP(C) 46/2016 alleging that the said Requisition Notice could not be allowed to be acted upon, inasmuch as, the same did not fulfill the requirements of the provisions under Section 15(2) of the said Act. The pin-pointed plea of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This batch of three writ petitions involving virtually a common question of fact and of law were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. In WP(C) No. 6776 of 2014, the petitioner, which is private engineering firm, is questioning the validity of the notice dated 16-1-2014 issued by the respondent No. 3 requiring it to show cause as to why the Service Tax amounting to Rs.22,37,916, Education Cess amounting to Rs.44,757/- and Secondary and Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs.22,381/- totalling to Rs.23,05,054/- should not be demanded and recovered from it and the order dated 27-6-2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh (respondent 3) confirming the demand and recovery of Service Tax from it and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 23,05,054/-. In WP(C) No. 6777 of 2014, the same petitioner is challenging the notice dated 16-1-2014 issued by the same respondent requiring him to show cause as to why the Service ...
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
M Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. H Das, learned counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned ASGI, representing Respondent No.1 and Mr. M Bhagabati, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, representing Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The three petitioners herein belong to one family unit. Petitioner No.2, Musstt. Phul Banu is the wife of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Md. Abdul Seikh and the petitioner No.3, Musstt. Fatema Begum is the daughter of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Challenge is made to the order dated 17.1.2014/20.1.2014 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, Assam, in FT(C) Case No.190/20083 whereby the reference filed against them was disposed of on contest in favour of the State. The petitioners were declared to be foreigners illegally entering into India (Assam) in the year 1973, i.e., after 25.3.1971 from village Ramaseel in the district of Maimansing of Bangladesh. 3. On a reference made by the concerned authority against the petitioners, a case was initially regi...
Tag this Judgment!