Best Of 2022- Important Judgments From North East High Courts

As the end of year 2022 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you a bunch of important Cases from the High Courts of Gauhati, Meghalaya, Tripura, Sikkim and Manipur. This roundup includes 180+ important orders and judgments.GAUHATI HIGH COURT "Benefit Of CAA Available": Gauhati HC Asks East-Pakistan Immigrant To Apply For Citizenship, Sets Aside Order Declaring Him 'Foreigner' Case title - Bablu Paul @ Sujit Paul v. Union of India Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 1 Setting aside an order of a Foreigner's Tribunal which had declared a Hindu Man, who had migrated from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) as a Foreigner, the Gauhati High Court recently directed him to apply for citizenship by taking benefit of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Taking into account subsection (1) to clause (b) of Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 added through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Court opined that the petitioner can avail the citizenship under CAA as he is a Hindu who entered into India before 31.12.2014 and he was given permission to settle in India. Foreigners Tribunal's Order Declaring A Person As Citizen Is Binding On Subsequent Proceedings Against Same Person: Gauhati High Court Case Title: Md. Maynul v. Union of India Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 2 The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside an order passed by a Foreigners' Tribunal declaring a resident of Jorgah village, Sonitpur as a foreigner after noting that the concerned Tribunal had earlier declared him to be an Indian citizen but had subsequently passed an ex-parte order declaring him to be a foreigner. A Bench comprising Justices Kotiswar Singh and Malashri Nandi observed that the Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India had held that if there had been an order by the Foreigners Tribunal in favour of a person determining the citizenship, the said decision will be binding on subsequent proceedings against the same person and there cannot be another proceeding to re-determine the citizenship of the person, by applying the principle of res judicata. Grievances Pertaining To Internal Affairs Of Unaided Private Educational Institutions Not Amenable To Article 226 Jurisdiction : Gauhati High Court Case Name: Mukti Nath Gogoi v. The State of Assam And Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 3 Gauhati High Court observed that disputes pertaining to the internal affairs of an unaided private Educational Institution are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court clarified that a mandamus can be issued against such an institution only if it performs public function and the grievance relates to discharge of such public function. Justice Michael Zothankhuma dismissed two writ petitions filed challenging termination of services, against an unaided private educational institution as not maintainable. Order XXII CPC| Appeal Doesn't Abate As A Whole Merely Due To Non-Substitution Of Some Legal Representatives: Gauhati High Court Case Title: Deochand Sarda (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Surendra Narayan Sukul (Dead) by LRs & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 4 The Gauhati High Court recently held that non-substitution of some of the legal representatives ("LRs") of the parties under Order XXII, CPC does not amount to abatement of the entire appeal. A Bench comprising of Justice Devashish Baruah held: "…the provisions contained in Order XXII would lend credit and support the view that they are devised to ensure the continuation and culmination into an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remains intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order XXII are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice." Emergent Powers U/S 41 Of Assam Excise Act Do Not Include Closing Of Premises Not Engaged In Liquor Manufacturing Possession Or Sale: Gauhati HC Case: M/s Shiva bottles Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. State of Assam & four others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 5 The emergency powers encompassed within Section 41 of the Assam Excise Act 2000 accords on any excise or police officer the power to search premises and seize material and documents found and arrest any person, after having recorded his grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, however, this power does not include sealing/closing the premises, Guwahati High Court has held. Justice Devashish Baruah while hearing a plea challenging the action of excise authorities in sealing the factory of the petitioner involved in manufacturing of PET bottles, caps etc., held that although Excise Act ...

Best Of 2022- Important Judgments From North East High Courts

AK Neslin

Tags