Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 13-19]Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala Khatun 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 13-19]
Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13
Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14
Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala Khatun 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16
Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 17
M/s Vertex Construction v. The State of Nagaland & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 18
Udit Narayan Purkayastha v State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 19
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case: Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13
The Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with the cancellation of a fair price shop (PDS) licence, holding that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision, and finding that no case for interference was made out.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, said, “The certiorari jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be confined to the decision making process and not to the merits of the decision. In other words, the examination is on the aspect as to whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration or as to whether the impugned decision is based on extraneous factors and irrelevant consideration. The aspect of jurisdiction of the authority passing the order may also be examined which is not the case in hand. There are also no allegations of mala fide in passing of the impugned order.”
Case: Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of India
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused after holding that, once the co-accused in the same case (tried separately) had been acquitted and such findings had not been disturbed in appeal, the Court was bound to proceed on the basis that those findings were valid for the purpose of bail, thereby satisfying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, observed, “Till such finding is disturbed in appeal, the Court considering the bail application must proceed on the basis that the said findings are valid ones, as in a bail application, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of such findings. In that view of the matter, as a logical corollary, it would be prudent for the Court to hold that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and therefore, the first condition stipulated under Section 37 NDPS Act stands satisfied.”
Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Way Of Affidavit Made Before Notary: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala Khatun
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
The Gauhati High Court has held that a marriage cannot be dissolved by way of an affidavit made before a Notary, and that in the absence of any material showing invocation of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, a claim of divorce based merely on a notarised affidavit cannot be accepted.
Setting aside the Family Court's maintenance order, the Court found that the Respondent's earlier marriage had not been shown to be lawfully dissolved.
Case Title: Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners' Tribunal opinion, holding that the petitioner had “miserably failed” to prove that he is a citizen of India and born out of bona fide citizens, and finding no perversity or error on the face of the record in the Tribunal's decision declaring him a foreigner
A division bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the case, observed, “Under the circumstances, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he could be connected to the voters whose names appeared in the voters list of 1966 (Ext.A.), petitioner has miserably failed to prove that he is a citizen of India and born out of bona fide citizens.”
Case Title: Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 17
The Gauhati High Court has held that where there are disputed questions requiring adjudication through evidence, it may not be prudent to grant interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act at that stage.
Justice Pranjal Das accordingly set aside a trial court order directing payment of 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. The bench observed,
"The court has to be satisfied about a prima facie case before granting interim compensation. The court to make such prima facie determination has to see the merits of the case put forth by the complainant and the merits of the defence put forth by the accused. It is also stated that if the defence of the accused is prima facie found to be plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing interim compensation."
Case Title: M/s Vertex Construction v. The State of Nagaland & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 18
The Gauhati High Court has held that mere non-disclosure of use of Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method in selection of tender would not by itself give rise to allegations of malafides, favouritism or corruption by parties.
Such ground cannot be raised, particularly where the decision to adopt such QCBS method was taken well before issuance of tender and at a stage when the identity of bidders was unknown.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that the project/work in question was under a Centrally funded Scheme i.e., Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna which, if not executed within the time-line, would lead to lapsing of the Central fund, thereby saddling the State with the responsibility of completing the unfinished task.
Case Title: Udit Narayan Purkayastha v State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 19
In a writ petition seeking a direction for fresh consideration of a compassionate appointment claim, the Gauhati High Court has held that such relief cannot be granted where nearly 13 years have elapsed since the death of the employee, observing that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief and must be proximate to the date of death, and that in the present case the claim had become stale.
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, presiding over the case, held, “The learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed that the case of the petitioner admittedly not being considered in the manner required by the State Level Committee, a direction is called upon to be issued for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner. This Court has examined the said contention of the petitioner. This Court notices that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 14-05-2012 and around 13 (thirteen) years have lapsed since then.”