Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Nov-17-2004
..... , appropriate action was not taken at the appropriate time, the provisions of the election law, which have got to be construed strictly, must work with indifference to consequences, immediate or mediate.'7. in nripendra bahadur's case (air 1977 sc 1992) the apex court has also observed, '..............mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty in preparation of the electoral .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-05-2004
s.k. kar, j.1. it is really sad but is a fact that after consuming an unusual period of more than 10 yrs., this second appeal, registered on 7-1-1993, came up for hearing. on 17-7-95, this court made an observation that the appeal was being dragged for nothing with further observation that none of the counsel engaged for the parties were either appearing or taking any appropriate steps towards the progress of the appeal. the matter continued to get adjourned on this or that grounds on request from the parties. it appears that the matter was left totally uncared for since 17-12-98 till 27-5-2003. further prayer for adjournment was, however, refused and matter was heard on 19-2-2004.2. this appeal initially registered on 29-8-85 as c.a. no. 6/85 before this high court was send down on ground of pecuniary jurisdiction to lower court vide order dated 10-11-89. however, on admission, stay of execution of impugned decree was allowed by this court vide order dated 12-1-1993 (misc. appln. no. 8/93).3. late sapam kunjo singh, who was the defendant no. 7 before the court of first instance and principal respondent no. 7 before the first appellate court, preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-8-92 passed by the addl. district judge, manipur east, in civil appeal no.1/90/2/90/13/90/1/92 of this court. the first appellate court decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31-5-85 passed by the court of subordinate judge no. 11, manipur, in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Apr-05-2004
a.h. saikia, j. 1. both the appellant and respondents instituted two title suits against each other in the court of district judge/additional deputy commissioner, shillong claiming their respective right, title and interest over the same plot of land with three houses standing thereon, i.e., suit land in question. the appellant filed title suit being t. s. no. 3(h)/78 against the respondents for declaration of right, title and interest, as absolute owner in the suit property and also for recovery of vacant possession by evicting the respondents therefrom as well as mesne profit. on the other hand, the respondents as plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 instituted the suit being t. s. no. 12(h)/79 praying for declaration that (1) the predecessor-in-interest, late bhagirath bora, the vender of the appellant, had no absolute right, title and interest over the suit property even though allotment was given in his name, (2) the sale deed executed by him vide sale deed dated 21.9.1977 was illegal and void, (3) late bora, arrayed as defendant no. 1, was bound by compromise agreement dated 10.6.1977 and (4) the respondents/plaintiffs had preferential right of purchase.2. the brief facts, as have been noticed from the pleadings of the rival parties in both the suits, and not being in disputes, are that late bora took settlement of the suit land, being plot no. 31 with an area of 176 acrs. at oackland, shillong from the govt. and patta no. 15 dated 28.8.1975 was issued in his favour. he constructed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-08-2004
ranjan gogoi, j.1. an appellate order dated 1.6.1999, passed by the assam board of revenue is the subject matter of the challenge in the present writ application.2. the facts leading to the institution of the appeal before the learned board of revenue will have to be briefly recited in order to enable this court to decide on the correctness of the rival contentions advanced.one abdul mazid, was the owner of a plot of land measuring 3 kathas 9 lechas under dag no. 260 k.p. patta 216(new) of block no. iv of ulubari mouza within guwahati city. there was a family partition of the aforesaid land and the 2 sons of abdul mazid, i.e. talebuddin ahmed and abdul hai were given 14 and half lechas of land respectively, whereas the two daughters of abdul mazid i.e., mustt. faziltan nessa and mustt. ismatan nessa were given 1 katha of land each. mutation of the aforesaid shares were effected in terms of the family settlement reached. the writ petitioner, md. anis-uz-zaman is the legal heir of one of the daughters of abdul mazid, i.e., mustt. faziltan nessa and on the death of his mother, he inherited 1 katha land covered by new dag no. 209. the other daughter mustt. ismatan nessa sold he share of 1 katha of land under new dag no. 210 kp 83 to the respondent no. 2 and mutation was allowed by the circle officer by order dated 5.7.1996. the petitioner obtained mutation in respect of another plot of land measuring 10 lechas under new dag no. 212 of kp 83 claiming to be a heir of mustt ismatan .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Nov-18-2004
h.n. sarma, j.1. by the revision petition the petitioner tenant has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 26.11.1999 passed by the learned civil judge (sr. division) no. 1, guwahati in title appeal no. 23/95 allowing the appeal and thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned civil judge (jr. division) no. 3 in title suit no. 17/87, in part.2. the title suit no. 132/82 was filed by the landlord respondent on june 1982 praying for ejectment of the petitioner tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and defaulter. in the said suit prayer was also made for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit premises. the suit premises as mentioned in schedule b of the plaint are two godowns measuring 320 sq ft and 540 sq ft being part of holding no. 81 of ward no. 20 of gauhati municipal corporation. the defendants submitted their written statement in the suit and denied the contention of the plaintiff. the plaintiff's further case was that the suit premises originally belonged to one champa devi goenka who gifted the same to ashok kumar goenka on 25.3.1972 by a registered gift deed who in turn sold it on 16.3.1973 to shyam sundar goenka. the plaintiff respondents jointly purchased the land from shyam sundar goenka by registered sale deed dated 10.7.1981. there was a deed of rectification rectifying some clerical mistake of the sale deed. there is no dispute to that effect. at paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff stated as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-20-2004
p.g. agarwal, j. 1. the appellants/plaintiffs instituted title suit no. 58/89 and the said suit was dismissed by the trial court, whereupon the appellants preferred title appeal no. 29/96 before the civil judge, (senior division) but no relief was granted and hence the present appeal. title suit no. 58/89 was in respect of 3 bighas of land out of 7 bighas 1, kathas 13, lechas of land situated at village jahorpum under ghilazari mouza and covered by dag no. 595 and kp patta no. 142 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). 2. the case of the plaintiff is that one md. manir uddin munsi was the original owner of the land, and sold 5 bighas of land to one bhagawan das and the said bhagawan das sold the suit land measuring 3 bighas to the father of the plaintiff namely daulat khan by registered sale deed no. 7286 of 1978. the plaintiffs obtained mutation over the suit land but subsequently it was cancelled. the plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession and also for issuance of precept for mutation. 3. the respondents/defendants contested the suit raising the usual pleas. the defendants denied the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiffs by manir uddin. the defendants also filed counted claim stating that the plaintiffs have forcibly occupied the suit land on 11.12.86 and accordingly the defendants prayed for declaration of right, title and recovery of khas possession and also for cancellation of the sale deed no. 7286 of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-10-2004
p.g. agarwal, j.1. head mr. d. mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. n. dhar, learned counsel for the respondents.2. this common judgment and order shall dispose of the criminal revision no. 285/1999 and criminal revision no. 457/1999 which have arisen/directed against the order issuing process in complaint case no. 2274c/99 under section 420/468 ipc. the petitioners have filed the revisions praying for quashing of the proceeding under section 482 cr.p.c.3. the respondents/complainants shri kamakhya charan ghose, smt. anjali ghose and sri indrajit ghose instituted the complaint case no. 2274c/99 stating inter-alia about certain land disputes between the complainants side and as may as five accused persons. some civil suit is pending between the parties and the main allegation of the complainants is that their mother late nivanani ghose died in the year 1980 but a partition case no. 219/95-96 was filed by the accused persons without disclosing the fact that nivanani ghose had expired and thereafter notices were issued and served by the process served on nivanani ghose on 15.8.1997. as stated above nivanani ghose was no more in this world on that date. it is, therefore, alleged that the accused persons had obtained the mutation and partition order by forging the documents in collusion with the process server. the learned magistrate registered the said complaint and held enquiry under section 200 cr.p.c. wherein two witnesses were examined and thereafter issued .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-17-2004
p.p. naolekar, c.j.1. on 7-10-1985 the board of directors of assam financial corporation (afc) had sanctioned a term loan of rs. 30,00,000.00 to m/s super packaging ltd., jorhat for establishment of a medium scale unit at jorhat, assam for manufacturing of hdpe woven sacks to use for packaging items like food grain, fertilizers, cement etc. the commercial operation of the unit was started since 1989 with the installed capacity of 720 mt per annum. though the unit started its commercial operation in march, 1989 it could not sustain its growth and the unit was closed w.e.f. 9-2-1994. the afc started proceedings for recovery of its loan along with interest against the company under the state financial corporation act, 1951 (for short 'the act'). when the proceedings have been started under the act, the appellant company wrote a letter dated 23-2-1994 requesting the afc for one time settlement of the dues of the company. the company again sent a letter on 23-12-1994 to the afc for repayment of the outstanding dues with its proposal for one time settlement. the afc did not agree with the one time settlement proposal made by the company and the same was rejected. later on, by letter dated 31-3-1995 the afc offered to the company for one time settlement in accordance with the policy decision taken by the afc for settlement of outstanding dues of any party concerned. when the company received the letter of the afc making an offer for one time settlement under the terms and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-05-2004
i.a. ansari, j. case of the writ petitioners:1. in the nutshell, the case of the writ petitioners may be stated as follows : - the writ petitioner no. 1 is a limited company, incorporated under the companies act, 1956, having its registered office at guwahati, assam, with the petitioner no. 2 as its director. in the year 1991, the state government announced a new industrial policy called 'industrial policy and incentive scheme of 1991' and gave certain incentives, in the form of sales tax exemption, to new industrial unit to be established within the state of assam after 01.04.1991. this incentive of sales tax exemption was granted, for a period of 7 years, on the sale of finished products as well as on purchase of the raw materials. after enactment of the assam general sales tax act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the agst act, 1993'), the government of assam, in exercise of the powers vested in it under section 9(4) thereof, framed a scheme named 'assam industries (sales tax concessions) scheme, 1995' (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme of 1995') granting relief of exemption of sales tax, both central as well as state, for a period of 7 years, to the new industrial units, established on or after 01.04.1991, on fulfillment of the criteria of eligibility prescribed therein. in response to the scheme of 1995, so announced, the petitioner company undertook steps to establish a new industrial unit at bettola, guwahati, and prepared a project report (annexure-ii to the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-21-2004
i.a. ansari, j.1. by the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.8.2002, passed in wp(c) no. 62/2000, the writ petition has been dismissed. feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has, now, preferred the present appeal.2. can the terms and conditions of the service of a government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? if so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers will the power to amend the conditions of service rertospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to the government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced whether the writ of mandamus, issued in a given case, can be superseded by the government and if so, how and what extent what was the real question, which the wp(c) no. 62/2000, had raised for determination and whether the learned single judge has, on 9.8.2000, correctly disposed of the writ application did rule 55a, introduced in the central civil services (pension) rules, 1972, as adopted, in the state of tripura, by virtue of notification, dated 2.7.1972, issued by the government of tripura, vest in the government servants any legal and/or fundamental right to receive dearness relief? what was the real controversy in civil rule no. 259/ 1995 has the impugned notification, dated 27.10.1998, .....Tag this Judgment!