Gauhati High Court Annual Digest 2025

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 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.”Gauhati HC Denies Migrant's Plea For Extension Of Time To Register Under Citizenship Act, Cites SC Ruling Upholding Validity Of S.6ACase Title: Begum Zan v. Union of India & 6 Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 2The 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.Detaining Authority Must Show Likelihood Of Bail To Pass Preventive Detention Order Against Person Already In Custody: Gauhati HC ReiteratesCase Title: Shri Gurmej Singh Batth v. The State of Nagaland & 3 Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 3The 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.Exemptions Provided To Micro & Small Enterprises Doesn't Cover Work Contracts, Not Covered By 2012 Public Procurement Policy: Gauhati HCCase Title: M/s Northeast Engineering & Construction v. The Union of India & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 4The 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.”S.73 CGST Act | SCN, Order Issued Without Signature Of Proper Officer Is 'Ineffective': Gauhati High CourtCase title: Shri Shambhu Prasad v. The State Of Assam And OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 5The 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.”Mere Refusal To Marry Does Not Constitute Offence Of Cheating Unless Ingredients U/S 90 Of IPC Are Met: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Guluk Kathar v. State of AssamCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 6The 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...

Gauhati High Court Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags