Court : Guwahati
Order (Oral) B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08/06/2012 of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Dhubri (Assam) passed in FT Case No. 1021/GPR/08 (Ref. Case No. R/IMDT/1866/98) (State of Assam Vs. Musstt. Abiran Bibi). By the said order, the learned Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record has declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25/03/1971. 2. We have heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned State Counsel and so also Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Union of India. We have also gone through the entire materials in record including the records received from the Tribunal. 3. As discussed in the impugned judgment and order, there are lot of discrepancies in the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal to prove that she is not a foreigner. In one place of the written statement, she claimed her grandfather to be one Jahaddi Sk son of Rahman a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Order (Cav) (1) This Criminal Appeal from jail is preferred by the accused appellant Md. Abdul Motleb, being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 38 (NL) of 2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 552/2004, arising out of Laluk Police Station (District-Lakhimpur) Case No. 65 of 2004 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 302 IPC, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of 2 (two) months and also sentenced him for Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) years with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 201 IPC, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 15 days, with the observation that both the sentences are to run concurrently. (2) The prosecution case, as it emerges from the Fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent/plaintiff despite service of notice. 2. Mr. Das has submitted that the names of appellant Nos.1 and 2 may be struck off as they did not prefer any appeal before the first Appellate Court. Accordingly, their names are struck off. Registry will take consequential steps. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Goalpara, in Title Appeal No.13/2004, affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Goalpara, in Title Suit No.27/2001, whereby plaintiff s suit for right, title, interest and recovery of khas possession as well as cancellation of registered sale deed No.773 dated 23.09.1998 was decreed against the defendants. 3. Against the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by eight of the defendants accompanie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 14/2005 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 7/2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the counter-claim of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was decreed. 3. The appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 18.1.2012 on the following substantial question of law: 1.Whether the learned courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as barred by time, in view of Article 64 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, the suit of the plaintiff being the suit for declaration of right, title and interest a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The management of the Oil India Limited (respondent No.3) is represented by the learned senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Sarma. 2. The petitioner was a Grade-VIII Assistant in the Pipeline Division of the Oil India Ltd. and the present matter relates to the disciplinary proceeding in pursuant to which, the delinquent was dismissed from service through the order dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-3). The resultant reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act ) was answered against the delinquent through the award dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure-7) rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and all these decisions are challenged by the aggrieved employee. 3. Earlier the Grade-VIII Assistant was promoted to the Grade-IX and was transferred but in order to continue at Guwahati the petitioner had foregone his promotion. That is how he co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Ms P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 30/2004 allowing the appeal of the defendants and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8.6.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Barpeta in Title Suit No. 40/2003 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and counter-claim of the defendants was dismissed. 3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 12.12.2005 on the following two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court that the defendant and late Asrab Ali, father of the plaintiff were the co-owners of the suit land is perverse? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court misconstrued the provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. 2. RSA No.98/2008 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.14/2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.9/2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 3. RSA No.99/2008 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.15/2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.39/2001, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 4. Both the second appeals were admitted to be heard by separate o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. 2. RSA No.98/2008 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.14/2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.9/2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 3. RSA No.99/2008 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.15/2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.39/2001, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 4. Both the second appeals were admitted to be heard by separate o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/management. Also heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (workman). 2. The workman was dismissed from service on 5.7.1999 (Annexure-7) in pursuant to the finding of the Inquiry Officer and since the conciliation attempt failed, the Government framed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act ), on the following two points for adjudication by the Labour Court: i) Whether the management of M/s. Kamakhya Udyog (P) Ltd. is justified by dismissing Sri Munchi Rai from his service with effect from 5/7/99? ii) If not, then the said workmen is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other back benefit as per the rule or any other relief in lieu thereof? 3. The workman was engaged in the night shift duty in the factory of M/s. Kamakhya Udyog (P) Ltd. (now taken over by M/s. Assam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants assisted by Mr. B. Hussain and Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No.7/2000 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Barpeta, in Title Suit No.34/1990, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 3. Initially, by a judgment and order dated 14.08.1992, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, in Title Appeal No.4/1993, by an order passed on 12.05.1994, the judgment of the learned Trial Court was set aside and the case was sent back for re-trial. Challenge made to the said order dated 18.05.1994 was negated by an order passed by this Court on 18.05.1994 in Civil Revision Pet...
Tag this Judgment!