Gauhati High Court judgments

Gauhati High Court reaffirms that Section 125 CrPC does not entitle adult children to maintenance unless they suffer from physical or mental disability, rejecting claims based solely on educational dependency. The ruling clarifies the statutory limits on child maintenance beyond majority under criminal procedure law.

Gauhati High Court quashed a land sale rejection order, ruling that repeated rejections without legal basis-especially during medical emergencies-constitute malice in law and violate Article 14. Authorities must now decide pending applications within one month, setting a precedent for fair administrative action in land revenue cases.

Gauhati HC acquitted the accused in a murder-arson case, ruling that extrajudicial confessions made in police presence are inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain to secure conviction, failing which benefit of doubt accrues to the accused.

Gauhati High Court ruled that newly created judicial posts cannot be merged with vacancies advertised under an earlier notification, violating recruitment norms. The judgment mandates recalibration of the 25% LDCE quota and sets a precedent for strict compliance in judicial service recruitments, impacting Mizoram Judicial Service officers and future hiring processes.

Gauhati HC (Kohima Bench) ruled that an unregistered sale deed cannot confer legal rights over a government quarter, rendering continued occupancy unlawful under the Registration Act. The court upheld eviction notices and imposed costs for abuse of process, reinforcing that statutory registration requirements override private agreements in government property disputes.

Gauhati High Court rules that GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns must consider personal hardship, directing reinstatement upon compliance with pending filings and dues. The judgment reinforces that administrative actions under the CGST Act must be proportionate and just, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary cancellations.

Gauhati HC rules that suspension under Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 cannot exceed 90 days without a formal extension order. Mere internal recommendation is insufficient, violating statutory timelines and principles of natural justice for government employees.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that voters deleted from electoral rolls cannot bypass statutory remedies under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 by directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 - even when elections are days away. This reinforces the principle that administrative纠错 mechanisms must be exhausted before constitutional remedies are invoked, affecting millions of voters in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh who rely on electoral roll corrections.

Gauhati High Court rules that failure to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) does not invalidate a candidate's selection if they provide a resignation undertaking. The court held that desirable qualifications like Open Distance Learning (ODL) experience do not disqualify a candidate, reinforcing flexibility in service rule compliance for government employment.

Gauhati High Court mandates fresh disciplinary proceedings under Article 311(2)(a) and CCS (CCA) Rules when an appellate court alters the conviction. The ruling underscores proportionality in penalties and the right to a reasoned order, directing authorities to pass a fresh decision within three months.

Gauhati High Court reinforces that voters challenging electoral roll deletions must first pursue remedies under Sections 23 and 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 before approaching constitutional courts. The ruling underscores the primacy of statutory mechanisms in electoral disputes, impacting voters, election officers, and legal practitioners handling similar cases.

Gauhati High Court rules that an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act is punishable under Section 18, even if penetration is not proved. The court altered the conviction from Section 4 to Section 4(2) read with Section 18, reducing the sentence from 20 years to 10 years, reinforcing child protection laws without requiring physical proof of penetration.

Gauhati High Court rules that once a cheque is issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption of liability arises, shifting the burden of proof to the accused. The court held that absence of debt must be proven at trial, not during pre-trial quashment proceedings, reinforcing the strict interpretation of cheque dishonour cases.

Gauhati HC ruled that probate courts cannot adjudicate title disputes and must issue mandatory notice to all interested parties, including remote heirs, before granting probate. The court set aside a probate granted without notice to appellants, remanding the matter for fresh hearing under principles of natural justice. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in succession disputes under the Indian Succession Act.

Gauhati HC ruled that medical age estimation under the POCSO Act must include a two-year margin of error, failing which the prosecution cannot establish minor status beyond reasonable doubt. The court acquitted the accused after finding the victim's age (16-18 years) placed her above 18, coupled with testimonial inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that under the PMLA, property acquired prior to a scheduled offense cannot be classified as proceeds of crime merely based on its value or timing of acquisition. The ED must establish a direct nexus between the property and the offense, reinforcing that mere possession or unexplained wealth is insufficient for attachment - a critical safeguard for law-abiding property owners caught in enforcement dragnets.

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that Labour Courts cannot independently allow employers to introduce fresh evidence after declaring a domestic enquiry invalid. The right to submit new evidence must be affirmatively claimed in the written statement, reinforcing procedural discipline and preventing tactical delays in industrial disputes.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that the lack of pain, bleeding, or visible injury in a child sexual abuse case cannot undermine a conviction under POCSO, affirming that the consistency of the minor’s testimony and corroborative medical evidence are decisive. This reinforces that legal standards must prioritize the child’s lived experience over archaic physical proof requirements, setting a vital precedent for trial courts across the Northeast.

Gauhati High Court rules that pending ED investigations under PMLA do not justify withholding gratuity or pension unless the employee is named in an FIR, terminated, or statutory forfeiture grounds exist. The judgment reinforces that retirement benefits are protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, even during financial irregularity probes, absent clear statutory violations.

Gauhati HC reaffirms that Section 34 CPC limits interest on delayed refunds of auction bid amounts to 6%, even after a seven-year delay, unless parties agree otherwise. The ruling underscores the statutory cap's applicability in SARFAESI proceedings, impacting banks and bidders in recovery disputes.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that while the Lokayukta may investigate corruption in public appointments, it lacks the power to declare such appointments void without issuing notice or providing a hearing. This upholds Article 311(2) and Rule 9(1) of the Nagaland Services Rules, ensuring that even alleged corrupt appointees are entitled to procedural fairness before termination. The decision reinforces that investigative bodies cannot act as adjudicators without following established service law safeguards.

Gauhati High Court rules that illegal termination of a teacher without notice or opportunity of hearing entitles the employee to full back wages and retrospective regularization from the date of reinstatement. The judgment reinforces that undertakings extracted under duress-such as medical emergencies-are void under Article 14, protecting employees from unconscionable contracts.

A wife earning Rs. 2,000/month is entitled to Rs. 7,000/month maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as the law prioritizes basic subsistence over partial earnings. The absence of a Section 498-A FIR does not diminish her civil right to maintenance, reinforcing that economic vulnerability, not criminal allegations, governs maintenance proceedings.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a show cause notice under Section 74 of the NGST Act cannot be issued solely for non-payment of tax; it must explicitly allege fraud or suppression of facts to trigger penal liability. This reinforces procedural fairness and prevents arbitrary tax enforcement, protecting businesses from punitive action without statutory grounds.