3 Latest Gauhati High Court Judgments July 2018

1. Taher Hoque Laskar v. Union of India

Service Law - CRPF - Transfer & Posting - In matters relating to transfer and posting, it is the administrative and the executive authorities who are to decide as to how and when the employees concerned are to be transferred and posted - there are standing instructions to regulate the transfer and posting of the CRPF personnel and officers - controversy would be best settled at the level of the organization itself unless there are certain compelling circumstances to take up and adjudicate the matter.

2. Diganta Sarma v. Chaitali Siddhanta

Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Service and Posts) Act, 2005 (Assam) - Appeal stands disposed of by directing the respondent authorities No.2 to 4 to allow the appellant to continue in his service as an Assistant Deputy Controller of Civil Defence (Junior) by adjusting his service against the available vacant post of Assistant Deputy Controller of Civil Defence (Junior) and Respondent No.1 be appointed in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid direction has been issued in the prevailing facts and circumstance of the present case and shall not be construed to be a precedent for any other matter.

3. Pravin Kumar Jha v. Union of India

Service Law - CRPF - Transfer & Posting - Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Government Office Complex, New Delhi (respondent No.2) should consider the prayer of the petitioner in re-allocating his transfer and posting to any Jharkhand based unit of other Sector as suggested by the Inspector General of Police, North East Sector at Shillong.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014]

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog