Court : Guwahati
(Oral). 1. All the writ petitions pertaining to selection and appointment of Field Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics under the Government of Assam have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In response to the advertisement that was issued on 08.08.2008 and 22.05.2009, the petitioners along with others had offered their candidatures for the post of Field Assistant. Pursuant to the written test that was conducted on 21.03.2010, the results thereof was published vide Annexure-4, in which the petitioners stood qualified. They were called for the interview (viva-voce test) which was held during the period from 15.11.2010 to 19.11.2010. The results of the selection was published in the newspaper on 26.11.2010 (Annexure-6) followed by the Annexure-7 result sheet dated 30.11.2010. While in Annexure-6 results, only the roll numbers had been indicated, but in Annexure-7 results, the names were also indicated. According to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(Oral). 1. Both the writ petitions raising the issue relating to appointment as Mandal under the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. Both the petitioners are desirous of appointment as Mandal on the basis of the selection that was conducted in 2009. As would be evident from the minutes of the Selection Board, both the petitioners were provisionally recommended as in their case a clarification in reference to a WT message dated 04/02/2009 was sought for. Both the petitioners are holders of certificate of Survey under Rule 13 of the Assam Land Records Manual. Be it stated here that the provisions thereof are only executive instructions and not statutory rules. As per the said executive instructions (Rule 13), if a person who has not secured a Certificate of Survey, without assistance of any other person in the course of survey actually surveys independently 500 bighas of land and an Officer not below the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(Oral). 1. Both the writ petitions by and between the same parties on the issue of entitlement or otherwise the gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Workmen said to be represented by the respondent No. 4 Union have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. While in WP(C) No. 1209/2009 the challenge is to the Annexure-1 communication dated 22/01/2009 addressed to the representative of the petitioner by the Labour Officer, Kokrajhar, the challenge in the other writ petition being WP(C) 467/2009 is to the Annexure-1, Annexure-2, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 letters dated 16/05/2008, 12/09/2008, 05/11/2008 and 18/11/2008 addressed to the representative of the petitioner company by the Labour Officer, Kokrajhar. By the said communications, directions have been issued to the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs. 5,98,752/- and Rs. 1,88,05,011/- (in total) to the workers counted as 28 and 500 respectively. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(Oral). 1. Having heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Md. Noormohammad, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2,3 and 4, I am of the view that this is a fit case for invoking the provision of FR 18 by the respondent Board. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Marketing Inspector in the year 2000 and joined the service on 17.4.2000 at Baharihat Market Committee. On 16.5.2002, he was transferred from Boharihat Regulated Market Committee to Tinsukia District Regulated Market Committee, which he joined on 28.5.2002. The Secretary, Tinsukia District Regulated Market Committee, Tinsukia issued the order of posting for the petitioner at Chapakhowa Market Centre and directed him to survey the works and enlist the growers of ginger, which he did. According to him, while he was discharging such duties, he developed Neuropsychi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(Oral). 1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. In terms of the earlier order passed, the DEEO, Dhemaji is personally present in the Court and she has also been heard. Her personal appearance is dispensed with. Both the writ petitions raising the same issue have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The two petitioners were appointed by two different orders both dated 08.06.1995 as Assistant Teachers in the school called Dhemaji Adarsha M.E School. For a ready reference, one of the appointment orders is reproduced below:- GOVT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHEMAJI :::::::::::::::: DISTRICT ORDER Subject to discharge without notice and assigning any reason thereof Sri/Smti Abhiram Pegu is hereby appointed temporarily to act as Asstc. Teacher/Hindi teacher at Dhemaji Adarsha M.E/MV School in the retired/expired/transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Heard Mr. A. J. Atia, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sibsagar in Title Appeal No.16 of 1994 arising out of judgment and decree dated 23.09.1994 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sibsagar in Title Suit No.77/1987. By impugned judgment and decree, the first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court which dismissed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment /recovery of arrears. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C. P. Code so as to admit this appeal for final hearing. I have noticed that this appeal was filed as far back as in the year 2000. For one or other reason in last 14 years it was not heard on the question of admission and remained pending. I have perused the memorandum of appeal file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.01.2014, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dimapur, in Civil Suit No. 3/2013, whereby and where-under the learned court below returned the plaint to the plaintiff to file it in the court having jurisdiction over the matter. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order, the plaintiff ( the appellant in this appeal who would be referred to as plaintiff) has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the order, under challenge. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present proceeding, in brief , are that M/s Vijay Industries, a Partnership Firm, engaged in the business of manufacturing of all kinds of edible oil, oil cakes, Ghee, Milk products and allied goods (hereinafter referred to as the 'said goods') as well as in selling of said goods under the trademark " SCOOTER ". Such a firm filed Title Suit No. 03/2013 in the court of Addl. District Judge, alleging of infringement of trade-mark, infri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Heard Mr. U. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents. This is a civil revision filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the C.P. Code against the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Money Suit No.38 of 2007. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C. P. Code in a suit filed by plaintiff (Respondent herein) on the ground that the objection raised by the defendant in relation to territorial jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining and trying the suit is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore it cannot be tried as preliminary issue by taking recourse to Order 14 Rule 2 of the C P Code. So the short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether learned Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendant under O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.M. Sapre, CJ. Heard Mr. D. C. K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the applicants-review petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, appearing for the respondents. This is an application made by the applicants/ review petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the review petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. According to the applicants/review petitioners, the delay is of 584 days. We have gone through the cause stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, it constitutes a bonafide and sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The condonation of delay advances cause of justice whereas converse defeats the cause of doing substantial justice. There is no deliberate delay on the part of the review petitioners in filing the review petition and, therefore, the delay in filing the review petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Union of India ( non applicant of MAC Case No. 20/2010) against the award dated 31.8.2012 passed in the aforesaid MAC Case by the Member, MACT-cum-Addl. District Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali. Heard on MC No. 2104 of 2014. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant (Union of India) under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal. According to the appellants, the delay in filing appeal is of 251 days. In my opinion, the delay of 251 days is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient cause, which is required to be made out under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 90 days to file an appeal then there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellants waited for 251 days to file an appeal. Thirdly, the appellants a...
Tag this Judgment!