Court : Guwahati
Judgement and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. D.C. Borah, the learned Central Govt. Counsel (CGC). 2. The petitioner is a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and at the relevant time, his Unit was deployed with the ONGC, Nazira. He was detailed for shift duty at Cable PTL at the DSAB Rig from 1700 2100 Hrs. on 17.12.2005 and from 0500 0900 Hrs on 18.12.2005. Soon after his 2nd shift duty was over at 9 A.M., the theft of 30 meter length power cable was detected from the patrolling area and the lock in the lube oil store was also found broken for an attempted theft. Consequently a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up on 30.12.2005 (Annexure-1) under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the CISF Rules ). The constable was charged with gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and dereliction of duty under the following imputation:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgement and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. UK Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Govt. Advocate. The private respondent No.3 is represented by the learned Advocate Dr. B. Ahmed. 2. This case pertains to an inter se seniority dispute in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the Municipal Administration Department and consequential promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner challenges the exclusive direct recruit Gradation List of 28.3.2006 (Annexure-L), where the respondent No.3 is shown in the 1st place and the petitioner who is a promotee Assistant Engineer is altogether excluded. He also challenges the 2nd Gradation List of 28.3.2006 (Annexure-L1), where the name of the lone promotee Assistant Engineer is reflected. Thus there is no combined seniority list of all the serving Assistant Engineers (promotee and direct recruits) in the Department. The respondent No.3 was allowed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Ms. T. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 22/2003, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Silchar, Cachar, in Title Suit No. 36/2001. 3. By an order dated 31.01.2006, the appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law: Whether the findings of the learned Courts below on Issues No. 4, 5 and 6 were arrived at without considering the relevant evidence of DW1 Girija Ram Lohar (Defendant No. 1) and as such perverse and liable to be set aside. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit stating that on 11.12.2000, the defendants executed a Bainama (Agreement for sale) in favour of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as the Urban Board ) and its Managing Director (MD) are represented by the learned counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal. The learned Sr. counsel Mr. D. Mazumdar, appears for the respondent No.4. The Govt. advocate Ms. B. Devi, appears for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner No.1 is an association of the engineers of the Urban Board and the 2nd petitioner is the General Secretary of the association. They challenge the order dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure-F), whereby the Public Relation Officer (PRO) Surjya Kanta Bora (respondent No.4) was appointed as the Secretary of the Urban Board. The legality of the appointment is questioned by alleging that the post of PRO is a much lower level post and the respondent No.4 was appointed to a post of higher pay and responsibility, on pick and choose basis. 3. The Urban Board was es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgement and Order (Oral) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29/08/2013 of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (III), Barpeta, Assam passed in FT Case No. 150(III)/2011 (Ref IM(D)T Case No. 7155/B/98) (State of Assam Vs. Kurpan Ali). By the said order, the learned Tribunal has declared the petitioner to be a foreign national, who illegally migrated into Assam after the cut-off date i.e. 25/03/1971. 2. I have heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel and so also Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. As discussed in the impugned judgement, the petitioner, in the written statement, without naming his father, simply stated that his father s name appeared in the voter list of 1966. He also did not name his mother. He only stated that his father s name appeared not o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order: 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent United Bank of India (UBI) and their officers are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Dutta. 2. While serving as a Cash Clerk in the Ulubari Branch of the UBI, the petitioner was found to have committed misappropriation through fictitious Debit in Saving Book Accounts and accordingly a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him. Eventually the delinquent was dismissed from service on 20.12.1985 and this was subject to a reference, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act ). After due consideration the Industrial Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal. 3. The delinquent challenged the 20.1.2000 Award of the Industrial Tribunal through the WP(C) NO.635/2001, where the dismissal order was assailed on the ground that the management failed to secure the approval from the competent authority under Section 33(2)(d) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral): 1. Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, whose service was terminated in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. The Management of the Nonaipara Tea Garden is represented by the learned counsel Mr. K. Goswami. 2. The petitioner was engaged as a casual worker in the year 1984 in the Nonaipara Tea Estate and thereafter on 01.02.1995 he was appointed as a driver. On 22.04.2001 the Gypsy vehicle driven by the petitioner met with an accident in the Chandrapur area and since the accident spot was a detour from the National Highway (normal route for the journey from Jorhat to Guwahati), the petitioner was suspended and a charge memo was drawn up against him by the Manager on 04.05.2001 (Annexure-I) with the following allegation: On 22nd April, 2001 defying instructions given to you by the Manager, you had allegedly taken the Company Gypsy bearing registration No.AS-01-H-1995 to a village in Chandrapur area, which is about 30 kms ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. NN Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SN Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A Zahid, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Also heard Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to pass an order modifying the award dated 30.03.2013, passed by the learned Labour Court in Ref. Case No.2/2012 in accordance with the provisions of Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Petitioner is the workman and respondent No.3 is the management. 4. An industrial dispute was raised, which ultimately led to issuance of notification by the appropriate Govt. i.e., the Govt. of Assam, Labour and Employment Department on 28.03.2012 making a reference to the Labour Court, Assam for adjudication of the following two issues:- (i) Whether the management of Green Field Tea Warehouse, Panjabari, Guwahati-37, Dist-Kamrup (Assam) is justi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred by the successors of the original defendant against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.2, Guwahati in Title Appeal No.40/2002 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Guwahati in Title Suit No.101/1995. 3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 06.04.2004 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether power of attorney-holder can depose in the case on behalf of the Principal in the absence of any infirmity of the Principal in view of Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act and Order XXXII Rule15 CPC? 2. Whether in a suit decree of eviction can be passed in absence of proof of right, title over the suit land ? 3. Whether a Court can allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2012 rendered by learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in T.A. No. 3 of 2011 dismissing the appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2011 rendered by Munsiff No. 1, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in T.S. No. 5 of 2004 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned C.G.C. for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhatta, learned Senior Ccounsel assisted by Mr. D.C. K. Hazarika for the respondents. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2 and 3 herein (who would be referred to as plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 respectively), filed Title Suit No. 5 of 2004 against the appellant herein (who would be referred to as the defendant) seeking a decree for permanent and perpetual injunction restraining and prohibiting the defendant therein and its officers and employees from raising any construction on the land, more particularly described in the Schedule B and C of the p...
Tag this Judgment!