Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 85Convict Has Right To Be Considered For Release On Probation: Gauhati HC Grants Relief To Headmaster, Son Who Assaulted Student's MotherCase Title: Abdur Rehman Mandal & Anr. v. Mosht Rukia Kjhatun and Anr. & The State of AssamCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 1The Gauhati High Court recently extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation...
Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 85
Case Title: Abdur Rehman Mandal & Anr. v. Mosht Rukia Kjhatun and Anr. & The State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 1
The Gauhati High Court recently extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a school Headmaster and his son, who were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC for allegedly assaulting a student's mother, on the ground that the trial court failed to consider the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of said Act.
The single judge bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed,
“This court, after perusal of the judgment, is of the opinion that the learned Appellate Court did not make any considerations under the Act, 1958, inasmuch as, such consideration is a right of the accused and duties of the courts. A court may not grant benefit in the given facts of a case, however, consideration must be given. At the same time, the learned trial Court did not grant the benefit under the Act, 1958 to the petitioners citing manner of commission of offence.”
Case Title: Begum Zan v. Union of India & 6 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 2
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday (January 09) dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman praying for a direction to extend the time limit for registering with FRRO, on the ground that the Court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, would not have power to extend time for the petitioner, to register herself before the concerned and/or jurisdictional registering authority.
Case Title: Shri Gurmej Singh Batth v. The State of Nagaland & 3 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 3
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside detention and confirmation orders under NDPS Act against two detenues in judicial custody, on the ground that the orders lacked cogent materials based on which the Detaining Authority had reasons to believe that the detenues could be released on bail.
Case Title: M/s Northeast Engineering & Construction v. The Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 4
The Gauhati High Court recently held that work contracts do not come within the purview of Public Procurement Policy 2012 issued by Central Government and the exemptions provided to Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE) do not cover work contracts.
Justice Michael Zothankhuma observed:
“On considering the PPP-2012 and the clarification given by the Government of India vide letter dated 31.08.2023, coupled with the decision of the various High Courts, which are referred to above, this Court holds that the work contracts do not come within the purview of PPP-2012, i.e. the exemptions provided to MSEs does not cover work contracts.”
Case title: Shri Shambhu Prasad v. The State Of Assam And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 5
The Gauhati HIgh Court has held that the Show Cause Notice issued to an assessee under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Statement issued along with the SCN as well as an Order passed under Section 73(9) must mandatorily be signed by the Proper Officer.
Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “As it is the statutory mandate that it is only the Proper Officer who has the authority to issue Show Cause Notice and the Statement and pass the order, the authentication in the Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order by the Proper Officer is a must and failure to do so, makes the Show Cause Notice, Statement and Order ineffective and redundant.”
Case Title: Guluk Kathar v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 6
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the judgment and sentence order passed by a Trial Court under Section 417 (Punishment for Cheating) of IPC on the ground that mere refusal to marry would not constitute an offence under Section 417 of IPC until and unless the requirement under Section 90 of IPC is established by the prosecution.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Arun Dev Choudhury was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC assailing the judgment and sentence order dated December 14, 2010, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Morigaon, whereby the petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 417 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
Case Title: M/S JMB Construction and 2 Ors vs Dr Somesh Dhar and 3 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 7
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Malasri Nandi has held that merely because there is an arbitration clause providing for referring the dispute and the claim to the arbitration, the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred but the same is subject to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
Illegal Coal Mining: Gauhati High Court Orders Protection Of Ahom Historical Monuments
Case Title: XXXX v. In Re- The State of Assam & 15 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 8
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the State Government to complete, preferably within six months, the exercise of taking Ahom Dynasty monuments under the purview of 'protected historical sites/monuments' by measuring their authenticity, integrity and archaeological findings.
The division bench of the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam further directed the State authorities to take effective measures for protection of the historical monuments relating to the Ahom Dynasty in the State of Assam.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 9
The Gauhati High Court recently allowed an application seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against a family court's order, after noting that this 21-day delay which was already beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period as prescribed under the family court's act may not classify as “barred by limitation”.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema observed that in the instant case, the delay is 21 days beyond the limitation period, which, in the comprehension of the court cannot be termed as an "inordinate one".
Case Title: M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smti Taramai Borah & 4 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 10
The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday (February 18) dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by observing that a new ground, which was never taken at the time of filing of the written statement before the Tribunal, cannot be taken up in an appeal.
The single judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia noted:
“…Except a plea of maintainability, no new ground can be taken up by the appellant in an appeal. The plea, intended to be taken by the appellant, was never taken at the time of filing of the written statement. If the prayer of the appellant is allowed, there will be a de novo trial and it is not allowed by law.”
Case title: M/S High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP v. Joint Director, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Inteligence (DGGI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 11
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The provision stipulates documentary requirements and conditions for a registered person claiming input tax credit (ITC).
A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed that the provision was enacted based on powers derived from Section 16 of the CGST Act and the general rule-making powers under Section 164, not from the unenforced Section 43A.
Case title: Ashish Chanchlani v/s State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 12
The Gauhati High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani in connection with the FIR lodged against him by the Guwahati Police over the alleged obscene and controversial comments made in an episode of 'India's Got Latent'.
A bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed his plea, making his relief absolute. Earlier, on February 18, he was granted interim Anticipatory Bail on the condition of appearing before the Investigating Officer within 10 days.
Case Title: Sri Brajendra Das v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 13
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed an order taking cognizance of a cheating case for alleged breach of contract for sale of land, noting that there was no misappropriation or fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction.
In doing so the court underscored that mere breach of contract is not enough to prosecute for cheating unless dishonest intention while making the promise is shown.
Case Title: Reetam Singh v. The State of Assam & 4 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 14
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the State Authorities to complete the process of enrolling the Public Information Officers (PIOs) and the other Departments on the online RTI Portal, who have not enrolled to date, and also to make a provision expeditiously for uploading the supporting documents as directory instead of mandatory.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair was hearing a PIL raising a concern that the State authorities have not complied with the order dated March 20, 2023, passed by the Supreme Court in Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India & Ors. WP(C) No.1040/2019.
Carbonated Fruit Drinks Qualify As Fruit Beverages, Taxable At 12% GST: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: X'S Beverage CO. v. The State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
The Gauhati High Court stated that carbonated fruit drinks qualify as fruit beverages and are taxable at 12% GST.
The Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia opined that “where the subject product contains soluble solids and fruit content as per the report of the State Food Laboratory, it cannot be said to be akin to water, mineral water or aerated water. Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated water. The classifications by the petitioner of the items under the subject head Fruit Pulp or Fruit Based Drink appear to be correct.”
Case Title: Sakib Choudhury v. The State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 16
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Assam, to ensure that when exercising the power to arrest without a warrant, the police or any other authority issues a notice to the arrestee under Section 47 of BNSS or any other relevant provision of a special law, stating the grounds of arrest.
While hearing a bail application, the single judge bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed:
“This notice, which must be served on the arrestee at the time of arrest, should clearly state the grounds of arrest, including the full particulars of the offence, the gist of the accusations, and the basic facts necessitating the arrest. Failure to comply with this requirement would render the arrest invalid due to non-compliance with the constitutional mandate.”
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohit Karan Jain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 17
The Gauhati High Court stated that retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material and no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT were of the view that the said piece of evidence, i.e. retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material, noted the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami.
Case title - Abhishek Sureka and 3 Ors. vs. State of Assam and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 18
The Gauhati High Court has observed that quarrels between husband and wife or the demand for divorce by the husband or his relatives do not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia added that the word “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498(A) IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498(A), as it may be different from other statutory provisions.
Case Title: Kripanath Mallah v. Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 19
The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a petition by Congress's Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury–who contested from Assam's No. 7 Karimganj Constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections–challenging the election of winning BJP candidate Kripanath Mallah.
The court dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of proper attestation of the petition. The court also allowed an application moved by Mallah seeking dismissal of Choudhury's election petition on the ground that its presentation was not as per law and that the election petition was filed in violation of the procedure laid down in Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act. Mallah's application also contended that there were four pages missing in the petition copy served upon him.
POCSO Act | Court Must Corroborate Victim's Testimony If Found To Be Unreliable: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Promud Yadav v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 20
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside a conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the victim's evidence was not found to be of sterling quality and was utilised without corroboration.
The single judge bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed:
“This Court is of considered opinion that once it is found that the prosecutrix has not deposed truthfully before the Trial Court, her evidence no longer remains of a sterling quality and, therefore, it becomes unsafe for the Trial Court to rely on such testimony and to come to the finding of guilt of the appellant on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of such a witness. It is also pertinent to note that the victim, in this case, is also a child witness and, therefore, possibility of tutoring her may not be excluded.”
Case Title: AATRPRAC v. The Union of India & 7 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 21
The Gauhati High Court at Itanagar on Monday (April 28) disposed of a PIL regarding the alleged illegality in issuance of the Land Possession Certificates/No Objection Certificates in the reserve forest under the Namsai Forest Division by observing that the Government has already set up an enquiry and as per the enquiry report, no illegality has been committed in issuance of the said Certificates.
The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kardak Ete observed:
“……..we are of the view that in view of the fact that the respondents have already set up an enquiry regarding the alleged illegality in issuance of the Land Possession Certificates/No Objection Certificates in the reserve forest under the Namsai Forest Division and as per the enquiry report, no illegality has been committed in issuance of the said Land Possession Certificates/No Objection Certificates, but till date, no counter to the enquiry report is filed on behalf of the petitioner, we are not inclined to keep this PIL petition pending, the same is therefore, disposed of.”
Case title: Union of India & Ors. v. Chyawan Prakash Meena
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 22
The Gauhati High Court has upheld a single-bench decision asking the Central government to refund the income tax deducted from the salary of a BSF Assistant Commandant belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair passed the direction in view of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.
Case : Azibur Rahman @ Aziz @ Ajibur vs. State of Gauhati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 23
The Gauhati High Court has observed that unless steps are taken against investigating authorities for violating mandatory provisions on arrest, constitutional safeguards would continue to be violated and tinkered.
In allowing the bail application of an NDPS accused, Justice Kaushik Goswami observed:
"I would like to pen down my dissatisfaction and displeasure as regards the non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee his right under Article 22 of the Constitution of India by the investigating/arresting authority whereby the constitutional court is left with no option but to grant bail even in cases of heinous and serious offence and cases under the Special Act etc. I am thus of the firm opinion that unless and until such investigating/arresting authority are made liable for their lapses in complying with the mandatory requirements relating to arrest, the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to an arrestee shall continue being tinkered and violated."
Gauhati High Court Rejects PIL Seeking 'Compulsory Castration' Of Rape Convicts
Case Title: Reetam Singh v. The State of Assam & 3 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 24
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking direction to the Assam Government to bring in laws to introduce the punishment of compulsory castration of individuals involved in the crime of gang rape, rape and murder along with rape of minors, to make such punishment deterrent against heinous rape crimes, among other prayers.
The Court observed,
“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as after going through the materials available on record and after taking into consideration the reliefs sought for in this PIL petition, such as, to direct the State Government to bring in laws to introduce the punishment of compulsory castration of individuals involved in the crime of gang rape (all ages), rape and murder (all ages) along with rape of minors, we are of the view that the reliefs prayed for in the PIL petition cannot be granted on the pleaded facts and the materials placed on record.”
Case Title: Sh. Laldinsanga v. State of Mizoram & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 25
The Gauhati High Court recently issued measures for safeguarding children from the menace of sexual violence and exploitation.
The single judge bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami observed:
“…under the Constitution of India, it is the obligation of the state to protect children. I cannot also be unmindful of the fact that children due to their tender age are often vulnerable to sexual predation. Younger children are even incapable of distinguishing between safe and unsafe touches. I am thus of the firm view that it is imperative that all stakeholders including child protection stakeholders, functionaries, and educational institutions, take proactive and stringent measures to safeguard children from the menace of sexual violence and exploitation…”
Case Title: Md. Matab Uddin v. The State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 26
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside an order passed by a Sessions Judge, vide which it refused to accept the school certificate as proof of age for the claim of juvenility by an accused, observing that there were no other documents to support that fact.
The single judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia noted:
“……Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and juvenile/child in conflict with law. Protection of Children) Act, 2015 also speaks about a school certificate showing date of birth for determination of age of a child. The learned Sessions Judge unnecessarily disbelieved the school certificate.”
Case Title: Mustt. Lozzatan Begum v Shahidul Islam (2025:GAU-AS:7253)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 27
The Gauhati High Court, on Wednesday (June 4), allowed a woman to live separately from her husband, acknowledging her right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court observed that the wife had sufficient reasons to stay away from her husband, who had unfounded suspicions over their child's fair complexion and subjected her to physical abuse.
The bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saika observed, "The petitioner and the respondent are dark-complexioned people. But their child was fair-complexioned. That is the reason why the dispute between the wife and the husband arose. The husband started to physically harass the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child"
Case Title: Bittu Kumar v State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 28
The Gauhati High Court, in an order dated June 2, emphasized that in cases where an arrestee is not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest due to medical urgency, the magistrate must verify the status of such arrestee. The court remarked that even in such cases the magistrate has to, either through a personal visit or video conferencing, verify the status of the arrestee by passing a remand order to judicial or police custody.
'No Valid Marriage Between Parties': Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Man's Conviction U/S 498A IPC
Case Title: Sri Subhash Hazarika @Dhan Hazarika v. The State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 29
The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday (June 3) set aside a judgment and order passed by a Trial Court by which it convicted and sentenced an accused under Section 498A IPC, on the ground that there was no valid marriage that could confer upon the victim the status of a 'wife' as required to invoke Section 498A IPC.
The single judge bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria observed as follows:
“Upon examining the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court, it appears that while the issue of applicability of Section 498A IPC was discussed, the Court did not arrive at a clear finding regarding the existence of a valid marriage or whether the essential ingredients of Section 498A were fulfilled. Instead, the Appellate Court proceeded to affirm the conviction based solely on the fact that the accused/petitioner and the victim were seen cohabiting and that she was allegedly subjected to cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry.”
Case Title: Nazir Hussain & 3 Ors. v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 30
The Gauhati High Court recently held that the embargo under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on granting anticipatory bail will apply to offences either under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The Court held that the word "and" appearing in Section 482(4) must be read as "or" to give effect to the intention of the legislature.
Case title: Juri Baruah v/s State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 31
A single judge bench of Justice Robin Phukan dismissed the petition for regularisation filed by a temporary music teacher, after serving for 18 continuous years. The court held that the claim was barred by res judicata as it was already adjudicated previously. However, the court provided another remedy: to approach the Governor to invoke discretionary powers under Rules 31 and 235 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court explained that these rules allow for consideration of pensionary benefits, even if the employee does not meet the standard eligibility criteria.
Case title: Hachinur @ Hasinur v/s Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 32
The Gauhati High Court today ordered the immediate release of a declared 'foreigner' who was taken into custody on May 25, 2025 and held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, despite having been granted bail in 2021 by the HC and consistently complying with all bail conditions, including weekly reporting to his local police station.
“…the subsequent detention of the son of the petitioner is ex facie illegal. Under such circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental right of the detained person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Arrest of a person who is already on bail amounts to overreach of the orders passed by this court, and therefore, thus, such illegal detention can't be allowed for a minute,” a bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi.
Case Title: M/S Druckgrafen India Limited v/s State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 33
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has held that if an arbitrator is not appointed within 30 days of the demand by the other party, the right to appoint is not automatically forfeited. However, such appointment must be made after the 30-day period but before the other party files an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
This is a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 01.01.1997 with the Government of Nagaland for printing lottery tickets.
Case title: Altaf Hussain vs. The State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 34
The Gauhati High Court comprising of Justice Kardak Ete held that the disciplinary powers of the School Management Committee (SMC) remain valid until the date of publication and communication of the provincialisation notification, regardless of any earlier retrospective effective date
Case Title: Gobinda Saha @ Chandrahas Saha v. The Union of India & 5 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 35
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Assam Government to consider imparting a training programme for the Members and Superintendents of the Foreigners Tribunals in the State on maintenance of case records.
The said direction was passed by a division comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi in a writ petition assailing the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner.
Case Title: Kamal Debnath v. The State of Assam & Anr. & connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 36
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Assam Government to reinstate 52 officers who were appointed in service pursuant to their selection through Combined Competitive Examination (Mains), 2013 and 2014 conducted by Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and were discharged from service allegedly for their involvement in cash for job scam, on the ground that State had not passed any order as envisaged under proviso (b) to the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Shahima Khatun v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 37
The Gauhati High Court stated that the restoration of cancelled GST registration is permissible if the taxpayer clears dues and files returns.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that “proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 provides that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.”
Case Title: Atmaram Agarwal v. Sri Bijay Kumar Nawka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 38
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the accused had already pleaded guilty before the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge ignored the said aspect while allowing appeal.
The single judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia was hearing an application under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the judgment dated March 21, 2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.
In-Charge Headmaster Should Be Appointed Based On Seniority-Cum-Efficiency : Gauhati HC
Case Name: Nozrul Islam vs. The State of Assam and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 39
The Gauhati High Court bench comprising Justice Robin Phukan held that in case of two candidates joining service on the same date, seniority must be determined based on age, with the elder candidate being treated as senior. Additionally, appointment to the post of Headmaster must be made on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency.
Case title: Najibul Islam vs State of Assam
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 40
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday granted bail to one Najibul Islam, who was arrested for allegedly posting 'I love Pakistan' on Instagram following the Pahalgam terror attack.
A bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana noted that the petitioner had been in custody since May 1, 2025, and had completed approximately 70 days of incarceration and that his further custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage.
Case title: Rashid Sikdar vs State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 41
The Gauhati High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of posting objectionable content on Facebook, including an alleged 'open challenge' to kill Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma if anything happened to Pakistan.
A bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita passed the order in a bail application moved by one Rashid Sikdar, who had been in custody for 57 days in connection with the case.
Case title: Joynal Abedin vs State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 42
The Gauhati High Court on Monday denied bail to a man accused of posting content on Facebook in support of Pakistani citizens and the President of Turkey, as it noted that the accused had not 'complied' with the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution of India.
"On a plain reading of the Facebook message, it is clear that at this juncture, the petitioner supports Pakistan, not his own country. The petitioner has not complied with the directive principles as laid down in Article 51A of the Constitution of India", a bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia remarked in its order.
Case Title: Naser Ali Mondal v The State of Assam and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 43
The Gauhati High Court held that merely attaching tax determination statement to Drc-01 summary cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi stated that “…….a formal and duly authenticated SCN is mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 73. The Statement of tax determination under Section 73(3), which is attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.”
Case title - Kongkon Borthakur vs. The State of Assam and Anr.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
The Gauhati High Court recently observed that a journalist raising concerns about illegal migrants, religious fundamentalism, militant activities, and demographic threats to the indigenous people cannot, by itself, be construed as an attempt to create enmity between groups or to incite violence.
Stressing that the core duty of journalism is to raise burning issues, which matter to society, a bench of Justice Pranjal Das quashed a 2016 FIR lodged against 'Dainik Janambhumi' journalist Kongkon Borthakur under Section 153-A [Promoting enmity between different groups…]/34 of the IPC
Case Title : State Of Assam vs All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers And Employees Committee & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 45
A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that the classification among pensioners based on the date of retirement, when all retirees form a homogenous class and the pay revision is made effective from a particular date, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Further financial constraints cannot justify such discriminatory treatment.
Case Name : Sri Ismail Ali and Ors vs The State Of Assam and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 46
A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Manish Choudhury held that employees of the Assam Minorities Development Board, whose salaries are paid from grants-in-aid and not from the regular State salary head, cannot be treated as government servants and are not entitled to pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.
Case Name : State Of Assam And Ors. vs Pinuel Basumatary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 47
A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that the State Information Commissioner is entitled to the same salaries, allowances, and post-retiral benefits as the Chief Secretary of the State. Further that these benefits cannot be denied on the ground of not having 10 years of qualifying service, if the individual is already drawing pension under Central Civil Services Rules.
Case Title: Master Rehan Barai & Anr. v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 48
The Gauhati High Court recently directed a school to provide the free education to two students belonging to EWS category, including free books and uniforms etc. as per Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act read with relevant rules.
The court was hearing a plea by two students seeking a direction to the respondent school to provide free education to the petitioners by not insisting on fees towards books, uniform, or any other head. Because of this the students were not allowed to attend classes from the beginning of the session.
Case title: All Asom Goriya Yuva Chatra Parisad v/s State of Assam
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 49
Refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the demolition of houses allegedly belonging to members of the indigenous Assamese Muslim community in Assam, the Gauhati High Court recently observed that there can be no protection to a person encroaching upon forest/Government land, be it a person professing any faith.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita was essentially dealing with the PIL plea by All Asom Goriya Yuva Chatra Parisad, which claimed that the State authorities had illegally demolished houses of Assam's Indigenous Muslims in the Rengma Reserve Forest area under the Uriamghat Regional Forest Office.
Case Title: Sushila Devi Beria vs Ashok Kumar Beria
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 50
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia held that mere allegations of fraud or pendency of criminal proceedings do not render a dispute non-arbitrable unless allegations challenge the arbitration agreement itself.
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar (2025), it held that “the mere fact that criminal proceedings can or have been instituted in respect of the same incident(s) would not per se lead to the conclusion that the dispute which is otherwise arbitrable ceases to be so… To shut out arbitration at the initial stage would destroy the very purpose for which the parties had entered into arbitration.”
Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹19.5 Crore GST Notice Against PepsiCo
Case Title: M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India and 3 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 51
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed a ₹19.5 crore show cause notice (SCN) issued to food and beverage giant PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under the CGST Act, ruling that the GST department failed to comply with the mandatory process of return scrutiny before initiating tax demand proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, a single bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that the SCN could not have been issued without providing PepsiCo an opportunity to explain its stance.
Case title: Rahul Gandhi v/s The State of Assam and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 52
The Gauhati High Court quashed a sessions court order permitting the complainant to adduce three additional witnesses in a 2016 criminal defamation case lodged against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The court said that the grounds based on which complainant had sought summoning of additional witnesses were not specific, broad, general and the complainant had not demonstrated in what manner their evidence bears any nexus with the facts in issue, except stating that these witnesses are material and vital.
Case Name : Basanta Barman v. State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 53
A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising JusticeMichael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that an employee cannot claim arrear salary for honorary service prior to regularization if the appointment conditions were accepted and regularization order granted benefits only prospectively.
Case title: Akanksha Swarup v/s State of Assam and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 54
The Gauhati High Court quashed an FIR registered against CNN-News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup over allegedly defamatory remarks claiming practice of human sacrifice at Maa Kamakhya Temple during a broadcast aired in June.
The statement is stated to have been made by the petitioner during an interview with the relative of deceased Raja Raghuvanshi allegedly killed by his wife in Meghalaya earlier this year. It was alleged that during the said telecast, she stated on air that human sacrifice is being practiced at Maa Kamakhya Temple and that she had made that statement as a declarative factual assertion.
Case Title: Faiz Ahmed v. The State of AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 55
The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused of passing fake ITC worth Rs. 199.31 crores, which was passed to 58 firms across 11 States using fabricated invoices totalling Rs. 658.88 Crores.
Justice Kardak Ete was dealing with the case where the accused persons, led by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, had created a fictitious firm, M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, using forged documents, including a fake seal of JMFC Changlang, Aadhaar, PAN Card, and electricity bills.
Case title: The State and Nagaland and Others v/s Vatsala Panghal and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 56
The Gauhati High Court refused relief to a medical aspirant who was denied seat allocated to the Nagaland government under the Central Pool MBBS quota, despite qualifying the cut off.
The aspirant had challenged state government's 2021 notification as per which she was disentitled to one of the 42 seats allocated to the State under the Central Pool.
A single bench had allowed her plea and quashed the notification holding it to be contradictory to a Central Government July 28 guidelines for allocation of Central Pool MMBS/BDS seats.
Case Title: Dhirghat Hardware Stores and Anr. v. The Union of India and 3 ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 57
The Gauhati High Court has held that GST Registration can be restored even after expiry of the revocation period if the assessee complies with Rule 22(4) CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax Rules), 2017 requirements.
The Single Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, opined that if the assessee submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the assessee for restoration of GST registration and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the assessee.
Case title: Rejiya Khatun v/s Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 58
The Gauhati High Court has recently observed that the unabated influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh is changing the demography of Assam, leading to widespread civil discontent in the State.
The court also held that the State has unfettered power to expel a declared foreign national; in case they cannot be expelled due to any reason then the State can prevent a declared foreign national from getting employment, purchase land, marry Indian national, etc., "perhaps by framing appropriate policy" or by detaining such “declared foreign national” in the holding areas ear-marked for the purpose.
Case title: Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 59
The Gauhati High Court has held that when a DNA report conclusively rules out the accused as the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix, the victim's testimony loses credibility.
A division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria reiterated that the presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act operates only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts.
Case Title: Major Niklesh Kumar Lohani v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 60
In a matter where an Indian Army officer sought reconsideration of his transfer on account of his minor son having autism, the Gauhati High Court held that a differently abled child is entitled, as a matter of legal right, to have caregiving parents near him, and directed the authorities to reconsider the request for joint posting of the parents.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Kardak Ete, who observed, “Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the posting order unless same is in violation of statutory provision and actuated with mala fides or glaringly arbitrary.”
Case Title: Dr. Satyajit Paul v. State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 61
The Gauhati High Court has held that extension of service on the basis of a promotion recommended after superannuation is not permissible in law and that such recommendation cannot be given effect to once the employee has already retired.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, said, “Thus, giving the appellant an extension of his service tenure till the year 2027 would not be in accordance with law. The recommendation for promotion cannot be actually effected after superannuation.”
Case Title: Dr. Sangeeta Dutta v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 62
The Gauhati High Court recently granted bail to a woman doctor, booked for ill-treating her foster child, after finding that she had been arrested at night without prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, in violation of the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Dr. Sangeeta Dutta was arrested in 2023 along with her husband Dr. Walliul Islam and three others.
Case Title: Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak/Mayi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 63
The Gauhati High Court has held that an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court cannot enlarge its forum after the conclusion of hearing or retrospectively date a later decision without granting a fresh hearing.
Justice Budi Habung presiding over the case, observed, “Such enlargement of the forum after conclusion of hearing and retrospective dating of a later decision without further hearing, cannot be accepted, either, under the customary practices, or, the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.”
Case Title: Bharat Cheda v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 64
While dismissing a PIL filed against the reservation of the Itanagar Mayor's post for APST (Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes) women, the Gauhati High Court has held that the Deputy Commissioner's decision to reserve the post by draw of lots was valid under the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Pranjal Das observed, “the Court is inclined to hold that that decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, to prescribe for reservation of the post of Mayor for Women, cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the provision of proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2019 Act and therefore, merely because the State Legislature has not framed the procedure, would not be a good ground to annul the impugned intimation letter…If the Act provides for a certain procedure, in the absence of Rules, the action required to be taken by the Executive is not dependent on the framing of Rules or procedure.”
Case Title: Robin Padung v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 65
The Gauhati High Court has held that a contingency driver cannot claim either regularisation or promotion into a vacancy that is earmarked for direct recruitment under the applicable Recruitment Rules and the post-based roster.
Presiding over the case, Justice Manish Choudhury, observed, “Though a right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right but such right to be considered for promotion is to be considered in terms of the extant Recruitment Rules. A set of rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are constitutional rules and they have the same force as a statute, though made by the executive.”
Case Title: Jignesh Mevani @ Jignesh N. Mevani vs. State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 66
The Gauhati High Court has discharged Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani from the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman police officer, holding that the materials collected during investigation did not reveal any act carrying a sexual overtone capable of attracting Section 354 IPC.
The court however retained the charged against Mevani under IPC Section 352 (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation). The case arose from allegations by the woman officer that Mevani used slang words at her and pushed her while being escorted from Guwahati to Kokrajhar in a police vehicle following his arrest in another matter in 2022.
Case Title Smti Likha Nap & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 67
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by appellate authority under Arunachal Pradesh government's land management department which had cancelled a land possession certificate issued to a husband, based on alleged violation of interim order by the trial court in favour of his estranged wife under domestic violence act.
In doing so the court observed that the appellate authority lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order, and any order lacking jurisdiction is null and void.
Case Title: Dabin Soki @ Tabin Soki vs. Smti. Yama Yekar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 68
The Gauhati High Court has held that once government-allotted land is transferred and the transfer is approved through issuance of a Land Pass-Book, the allottee continues to hold right and title over the land until the allotment is cancelled or withdrawn by the competent authority.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the case, observed, “this is not agreeable that the Land Pass-Book is only for the purpose of payment of revenue and fiscal record and not for the purpose of conferring any right, title over the allotted land by the Government. The Land Pass-Book allotted in the instant case cannot be equated with the Jamabandi, Patta or Khata as has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.”
Case Title: The State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Legam Takaliang & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 69
While allowing a criminal petition filed by the State challenging the trial court's order discharging six respondents accused of dragging two rape-and-murder suspects out of the Tezu Police Station in Arunachal Pradesh in 2018 and lynching them in public, the Gauhati High Court has held that the material collected during investigation created grave suspicion against the accused and therefore required a full trial on the charges, including conspiracy, obstructing public servants, and murder.
Case Title: Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health, Tezpur v. M/s Green Alliance Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 70
The Gauhati High Court has held that once a supplier invokes Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the statutory dispute-resolution mechanism under the Act overrides the arbitration clause contained in a Government e-Marketplace (GeM) contract, including the agreed seat of arbitration.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Manish Choudhury, who observed, “Once the respondent no.1 having located in Delhi, claiming to be a 'supplier', has invoked the jurisdiction of 'MSEFC', Delhi, the statutory provisions contained in Section 18 of 'MSMED Act' would override the Arbitration Clause contained in 16.2 of GeM Contract.”
Case title - Asom Andolan Sangrami Manch vs. UOI and 13 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 71
The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought the strict implementation of the deportation clauses of the Assam Accord, 1985, in view of the pendency of similar substantial issues before the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, disposed of the petition filed by the Assam Andolon Sangrami Mancha, which had raised alarm over the "insignificant number of deportations" despite the legal framework of the Assam Accord.
Case Title: M/s McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
The Gauhati High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier failed to upload invoice details in Form GSTR-1, and has read down Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act and AGST Act to protect genuine taxpayers.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury disposed of a writ petition filed by the assessee, M/s McLeod Russel India Limited, holding that while the provision itself is not unconstitutional, ITC cannot be denied without giving the purchaser an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transaction through invoices and supporting documents.
Case Title: M/s Nepali Cutting Meat Shop v. Bank of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 73
The Gauhati High Court has held that a blanket freezing of a bank account pursuant to a cyber crime complaint cannot continue indefinitely and that the interest of investigation must be balanced with the rights of a bona fide account holder.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, observed, “After giving an anxious thought to the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the equities would be balanced and interest of justice would be served if a direction is given to allow the petitioner to operate the aforesaid current bank account with certain conditions. This Court is also of the view that in a given case, a balance is required to be struck between the interest of the investigation on cyber fraud which is creating a menace and the interest of a bona fide and innocent account holder.”
Merit Alone Governs Scale-VII Promotions; Courts Can't Re-Assess Marks: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Lathrang Born Buam v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 74
The Gauhati High Court has held that promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII under the applicable Promotion Policy is governed by the sole criterion of merit, and that courts cannot interfere with or re-evaluate the marks awarded by duly constituted promotion committees unless there is a clear violation of the prescribed procedure, parameters, or evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, held, “clause 7.2 categorically provides the emphasis or criteria to be given primacy to, at the time of promotion from scale-VI to Scale-VII. Clause 7.2 provides that promotion from Scale – VI to Scale–VII shall be based only on the sole criterion of merit, while promotion up to Scale-V shall be based on the overall ranking under various parameters for measuring merit and seniority amongst those qualifying the benchmark prescribed in para 9. Thus, in our view, for promotion from Scale-VI to Scale-VII, the criterion to be given primacy is merit, with seniority being duly respected in terms of clause 7.1.”
Case Title: All India Railway Passengers User Facilities Federation v. The Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 75
The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a PIL which alleged that Railways have failed to maintain punctuality, safety standards, amenities and service quality on the ground that the grievances in the petition were more in the nature of general policy suggestions and not legally enforceable rights.
The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed:
“At the outset, we note that the petition is bereft of any concrete material particulars or data. Except for bald statements and general assertions, the writ petition does not refer to any specific incident of derailment/accident, identified safety lapse, particularly in any stretch of track, or any statutory violation which would justify exercise of this Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Md. Ohiduz Zaman vs. State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 76
The Gauhati High Court recently granted relief to a retired college lecturer who was denied UGC pay scale holding that the benefit cannot be denied as possession of M.Phil, NET, SLET, or Ph.D qualification was not mandatory on the date of the lecturer's regularization.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Robin Phukan, who observed, “Since possession of M. Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification was not a mandatory requirement on 12.11.1993, i.e. the date of regularization of service of the petitioner, then depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the UGC scale of pay from the date of his regularization, i.e. 12.11.1993, imposing the conditions that the petitioner– (a) will have to obtain M. Phil or Ph. D. degree within 8(eight) years from the date of approval of his appointment; and (b) will not be eligible to draw senior scale of pay/Grade of pay until fulfills the conditions laid down in the letter, to the considered opinion of this Court, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same warrants interference of this court.”
Case Title: Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 77
The Gauhati High Court held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled on the basis of a cryptic show cause notice, which merely quotes statutory provisions without disclosing the factual grounds.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted that apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, there are no facts or any details stated in the show cause notice.
In the case at hand, the assessee's/petitioner's GST registration was cancelled through a show cause notice. An order was also passed during the pendency of the first writ petition, whereby the GST registration was cancelled.
Case Title: Khurshida Ahmed v. Enuish Ali & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 78
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a woman's appeal against an order directing her to refund over ₹4 Lakh to a third party for sale of a truck which she had bought on a loan, holding that she could not have sold or transferred the vehicle to a third party when she had no ownership right over the vehicle.
The appellant had purchased a Tata truck on hire purchase agreement, but she failed to pay the instalments after 23.06.2011 to the finance company. A deed was executed between the appellant and the respondent that as there was an outstanding loan, the respondent would would pay Rs.13,500 as monthly instalments till clearance to the finance company.
Conversion From Private To Public Company Doesn't Affect Existing Contracts: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Arvee Engineering Consultants Ltd (formerly known as Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers and Consultants Pvt Ltd) & Ors v Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 79
The Gauhati High Court has recently clarified that when a company changes its class under the Companies Act, 2013 for instance, from a private company to a public company or vice versa, the mere issuance of a fresh certificate of incorporation does not wipe out its existing legal commitments.
Its contracts, liabilities and obligations continue to subsist and remain fully enforceable notwithstanding such conversion
Case Title: Hafijur Rahman & Anr. v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 80
The Gauhati High Court while granting bail in a case involving an alleged attack on a serving Judicial Magistrate, has flagged the urgent need to take a fresh look at the personal security of judicial officers of all grades, observing that judicial work, particularly on the criminal side, often offends vested interests and exposes judges to tangible risks, making continuous personal security a matter of institutional necessity.
Justice Pranjal Das, pressing over the case, allowed the bail application, while observing, “Before parting, this Court is inclined to make the following observations : this incident is also a reminder regarding the need for taking a fresh look at the security for Judicial Officers of all grades and not just Senior Judicial Officers. Judicial Officers in the course of their work, especially those working on the criminal side, could offend vested interests and invite risks. Therefore, their personal security at all times needs to be taken care of well.”
Case Title: Aynul Hoque Laskar v. State of Assam & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 81
The Gauhati High Court has observed that a Circle Officer "may be" conferred with power under Section 11 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act 2021 to enter and inspect a premises where violation the statute may have occurred including a meat shop, however the officer has no authority or jurisdiction to seal the premises.
The Court noted that the statute permits such officers to enter and inspect a premises and seize materials found there, but it does not extend to sealing the premises altogether where there is a reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed.
Case Title: Hementa Kumar Nath and Another v. State of Assam and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 82
The Gauhati High Court has held that Rule 47(1) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 only prescribes an upper limit for settlement of markets and does not contemplate or permit reading any minimum or “lowest viable” bid requirement into the statutory scheme.
The Court further held that administrative notices or assumptions drawn from tender-related figures cannot be used to import conditions into Rule 47(1) which the Rule itself does not provide for.
GST Registration Can Be Restored If Returns And Dues Are Cleared: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Shri Pankaj Mohan Vs. The Union of India &Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 83
The Gauhati High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking restoration of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration which had been cancelled due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.
A single judge bench of Justice Kardak Ete was hearing the petition filed by a proprietor engaged in execution of works contracts, whose GST registration was cancelled by the GST authorities after issuance of a show cause notice alleging continuous default in filing returns.
Case Title: Sameer Malik v. The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 84
The Gauhati High Court held that even though GST investigations are revenue in nature, arrests made by GST officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Pranjal Das opined that even with regard to arrest by revenue authorities under GST, the procedural compliance under Sections 35/47/48 B.N.S.S. are essential, failing which, the arrest may become bad in law.
Case title: X & Anr. v/s Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 85
The Gauhati High Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021 which prescribes an age limit for men and women who can avail ART services, observing that provision was enacted to ensure well-being of the mother and child.
For context, as per Section 21(g), ART services can be provided to women who are above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years and to men who are above the age of 21 years and below the age of 55 years.