Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH, COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
State of Nagaland, represented by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Land and Revenue – Appellant
Versus
Vinoka Chishi, S/o. Shri Vitokhu Chishi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the respondents established their legal claims over the land in question. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the petitioners argued over jurisdictional issues and legal inaccuracies in previous rulings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. the court emphasized public interest concerning infrastructure projects. (Para 12 , 13 , 18) |
| 4. statutory provisions prevent granting of injunction against public infrastructure developments. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. the court's decision mandated the quashing of previous injunction orders. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
(ROBIN PHUKAN, J.)
Heard Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland, assisted by Ms. T. Khro, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. M. Kechi, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Biswas for the respondent Nos. 1 to 13; Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the proforma respondent No. 14 and Ms. P. Chetri, learned counsel for the proforma respondent No. 15.
2. This revision petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge, Dimapur, in Civi
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
