Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026

Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 25-29]M/s Amprolisa Construction and Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Gupta Hardware Private Limited and Another. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 25Abhishek Kar v State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 26Mahim Chandra Nath and 9 Others v. State of Assam and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 27Dr. Vimal Katiyar v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 28Dalimi Kalita v Assam Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 29Judgments/ Orders This WeekS.138 NI Act | Initial Defect In Authorisation To File Cheque Bounce Case Is Curable Defect: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: M/s Amprolisa Construction and Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Gupta Hardware Private Limited and Another.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 25The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be invalidated merely because there was a defect in authorisation at the time of its institution, as such a defect is curable and can be rectified even during trial or at the appellate stage. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, reiterated, “any initial defect as regards authorization at the time of initiation of the complaint is a curable defect which can be subsequently cured during the course of the trial or even at the appellate stage…”Gauhati High Court Quashes Case Against Influencer For Allegedly Linking Assamese Women To Black MagicCase Title: Abhishek Kar v State of AssamLL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 26The Gauhati High Court has quashed the CID Cyber Case registered against influencer Abhishek Kar for linking Assamese women to black magic in a YouTube video.Justice Pranjal Das held that the statement attributed to him does not fulfill the essential ingredients to invoke offences under Section 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 67 (publishing obscene material) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 4 (identifying, calling, stigmatizing or defaming any person as a witch) of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015.Proper Notice Under Section 18 Assam Land & Revenue Regulation Mandatory Before Evicting Occupants From Govt Land: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Mahim Chandra Nath and 9 Others v. State of Assam and OthersLL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 27The Gauhati High Court has clarified that where persons are in illegal occupation of Government land, and the authorities seek to make the land encroachment-free, a proper notice under Section 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 must be issued.Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, observed, “...it appears that the petitioners are in possession of certain lands which are admittedly government land. The notice which was issued earlier has been perused and the said notice is only on the aspect of production of documents of allotment which, if not done would lead cancellation of the allotment.”Mere Touching Of Hand Not 'Criminal Force': Gauhati High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against IIT ProfessorCase Title: Dr. Vimal Katiyar v. State of Assam & Anr.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 28The Gauhati High Court recently quashed the sexual harassment case registered against an IIT Professor for allegedly touching the hands of a woman who had approached him seeking mentorship for her startup idea.Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma noted that mere 'touching' of hands does not satisfy the definition of 'force' to attract the offence of Outraging woman's modesty by assault or use of criminal force under Section 354 IPC.Challenge To Wrong Pay Fixation Not Barred By Limitation As It's A Continuing Wrong: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Dalimi Kalita v Assam Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 29A challenge to wrong pay fixation cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay where the grievance discloses a continuing or recurring wrong, the Gauhati High Court has held, while directing reconsideration of a claim raised by an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) seeking parity in pay with similarly situated employees.Justice Kardak Ete, presiding over the case, held, “I am of the view that there would not be any quarrel to the aforesaid observation and proposition, although it has been rendered on its contextual facts of those cases, as in respect of any continuing / recurring cause of action, no application can be barred on the ground of limitation.”

Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026

Bhavya Singh

Tags