Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners (defendants). The respondents (plaintiffs) are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. B. Padun. 2. The Title Suit No.8/2007 was filed for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Act). It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1s cousin brother (defendant No.1) on 26.1.2007 forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land. The suit was decreed on 29.11.2008 (Annexure-3) by the learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur by declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also for recovery of possession from the defendants. 3. Assailing the legality of the impugned decree, the defendants submit that since recovery of Government land was sought in the case, the suit was not maintainable under Sub-Clause (b) of the Section 6(2) of the 1963 Act. Moreover, since the title was declared in summary proceeding under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Money Appeal No.11/2006 whereby the amount of compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) initially awarded by the trial Court was enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand). 2. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court to be heard on two substantial questions of law, which are quoted herein below :- 1. Whether in the absence of any statutory report of the accident by the Senior Electrical Inspector as required under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the appellant can be made liable for payment of compensation for the death of the plaintiffs husband due to electrocution? 2. Whether the learned first appellate court is justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- in the absence of any evidence in that regard and whether the notional income of Rs.15,000/- is to be taken in the absence of any evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Appeal No.11/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No.82/1988. 2. The Second Appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :- (1) Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 32 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956? (2) Whether the suit is barred under Section 154(c) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? The appellant was given the liberty to urge any other substantial question of law that may emerge in the course of hearing. 3. The appellant as plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No.82 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati, (then Munsiff No.2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.08.2001 and decree dated 31.08.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No.2/2001 allowing the appeal by reversing the judgment dated 04.12.2000 and decree dated 21.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat in Title Suit No.67/1987 decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. 2. The Second Appeal had been admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law :- Whether non-furnishing of particulars of Schedule-B land makes the property unidentifiable when Schedule-B land is a part of Schedule-A land where full particulars are given as has been held by the learned court below? The appellant had been given the liberty to urge any other substantial question of law if so emerging in the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The appellant/plaintiff had preferred the suit being Title Suit No.67/1987 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. M.R. Das, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have also perused the entire materials on record. 2. This appeal has been presented against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.52(B)/04. By the said judgment, he has been convicted u/s 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07(seven) years with fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further periods of two months. 3. The father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR with the Bijni Police Station on 21.11.2002 alleging that his daughter was subjected to rape by the accused/appellant. In the FIR herage was stated to be 14 years. According to the FIR, the incident occurred in the toilet. With the lodging of the FIR, Bijni P.S Case No.171/02 was registered u/s 376 IPC. In due co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Oral Judgment: 01. Both the writ petitions raise identical issues and, accordingly, were heard together. Today is fixed for delivery of judgment. Accordingly, judgment is dictated in the open court. 02. Issue raised in the two writ petitions is whether gradation list of Lecturers serving in the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) should be department/branch wise or cadre wise. 03. This issue has arisen in the context of the Assam District Institute of Education and Training Service Rules, 2010 (DIET Service Rules, hereafter). While the petitioners contend that the gradation list of Lecturers has to be department/branch wise, the respondents contend otherwise. This has given rise to the present lis. 04. Background facts may be briefly narrated. 05. Petitioners in both the cases are working as Lecturers in different branches in various DIETs in the State of Assam. To achieve the objective of universalization of elementary education and eradication of adult illiteracy, DI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Cav Judgment: 1. As many as 9 (nine) writ petitioners involved in this case were appointed on ad-hoc basis in the year 2001 either as Enforcement Checker or as Assistant Enforcement Inspector under the Transport Department of Assam. Their appointment letters have been annexed at Annexure- 1 to this writ petition which shows that as per the term of their appointment they were required to appear before Selection Committee to qualify for being regularized in service and their failure to qualify in the selection test would result in automatic termination of their service. The Commissioner of Transport arranged for a selection process in the year 2002 and the written examination was conducted on 03.02.2002 in which the present petitioners had also participated. This selection process came under challenge before this court in PIL No. 19/2002 and a writ petition, numbered as WP(C) No. 6000/2002. Although, this Court dismissed the writ petition and the P.I.L on 29.01.2003, the aggrieved person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-2 order dated 18/07/2012 discharging him from service on account of the resignation w.e.f. 01/10/2012. According to the petitioner he had never tendered resignation from service and the resignation letter that was shown to have been tendered by him is in fact is the product of forgery. 2. The petitioner joined the Assam Rifles as Sepoy (GD) in the year 2003 and thereafter was promoted as Rifleman in the year 2005. While he was posted at the newly formed Unit of the Assam Rifles i.e. 46 Assam Rifles, he was punished for unauthorized absence from duty. Thereafter he joined duty but on 18/07/2012, the impugned order was issued discharging him from service w.e.f. 01/10/2012. Such discharge was on the ground of resignation from service tendered by him. 3. As regards the unauthorized absence from duty, it is the stand of the petitioner that he had to leave the Unit to attend his mother who was in a very critical condition. That was in 2010. As s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel representing the ONGC and their Executive Director. The Union of India is represented by Mr. J. Deka, learned Central Govt. counsel. 2. The petitioners challenge the award dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure-G) in the Reference Case No.3(C)/1996, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati held that the 11 workmen are not entitled to regularization/equal wages, at par with the permanent security guards under the ONGC, but they are entitled to continue as contract labourer under the labour contractors engaged by the Management. This 2nd award was given on remand of the matter by this Court, through its judgment dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure-D) in the WP(C) No.8368/2001, wherein the High Court held that there is inadequate evidence on record for the Industrial Tribunal to answer the reference on demand for regularization/equal pay, claimed by 11 workmen. In the 1st rou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Oral 1. This writ petition was filed in 2008 by the Jogighopa Ashok Kagajkal Sramik Santha, represented by its Secretary, C/o- Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. District- Bongaigaon, Assam. Apart from the prayer for appropriate decision in respect of the Mill and also the future of its employees and workers, further prayer made is to direct the respondents to pay the admissible salaries to the existing employees and workers for the periods indicated in the prayer portion of the writ petition specified as:- Take appropriate steps to clear the outstanding dues to the employees and workers of the Mill for the period of April-May of 1995, August 1997 to October, 1997 and October 1998 to 7th March, 2008. Take appropriate steps to make up to date the provident fund accounts of the employees and workers of the Mill in question for the gap period i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1995 up to 30.09.1998 of all the employees/workers including those who retired and expired in the meantime. Another prayer made in the ...
Tag this Judgment!