IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI
Kamal Debnath S/o Khitish Debnath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam A – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
1) By these set of 40 (forty) intra-court appeals, the appellants have assailed the common judgment and order dated 18.03.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of 49 writ petitions [W.P.(C) Nos. 4198/2019 - Geetali Doley v. State of Assam & Ors., and 48 connected writ petitions], by which all the said writ petitions were dismissed.
2) It may be mentioned that a total of 49 (forty nine) writ appeals were filed. However, during the pendency of these appeals, the appellant in W.A. 127/2020 had expired. Moreover, it may also be mentioned that by a separate order, W.A. No. 27/2024 has been segregated, as the appellant therein, who is one of the accused in Special Case No. 5/2021, (arising out of Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 159/2017), has been convicted.
3) Out of the remaining 47 writ appeals, it has been noted that 8 (eight) appellants had filed two writ petitions each, which were dismissed by the said common judgment under appeal. Therefore, these eight appellants, namely, Kavita Das, Kaushik Kalita, Harshajyoti Bora, Jayanta Kumar Nath, Hemanta Saikia, Jatindra Prasad Baruah, Dilip Kalita and Sabbira Imran have filed two separate writ appeals against
Pratap Singh v. UT of Chandigarh
Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P. & Anr.
Durga Bai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School & Anr. v. J.A.J. Vasu Sena & Anr.
Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya
Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam v. Devendra Kr. Jain
Hukam Chand Khundia v. Chandigarh Administration
K.V. Krishnamani v. Lalita Kala Academy
Registrar, High Court of Gujarat v. C.G. Sharma
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel
Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India
State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma
State of Maharashtra v. R. Prabhu
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal
State of Tripura v. Ramendra Nath Dey
Starline Agency v. Nabajit Das
Moti Ram Deka & Ors. v. The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway & Ors.
Krishan Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
State of M.P. v. Shyama Pardhi
Union of India v. O. Chakradhar
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar
Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors.
Lovely Singha v. State of Assam
Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Commodore Commanding, Southern Navel Area, Kochi v. V.N. Rajan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.