Can an Appointment of a Village Development Board Secretary Be Quashed for Improper Disqualification under the Village Development Boards Model Rules, 1980?

Clarifying that Secretaries Must Be Elected Only from a Properly Constituted Management Committee and Quashing Appointments That Violate Rule 5 and Rule 7   Summary Category Data Case Name WP(C)/154/2024 of SHRI R. THUNGARHOMO LOTHA @ THUNGARHOMO TUNGU Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS CNR GAHC020004432024 Decision Date 02-09-2025 Disposal Nature Disposed Of […]

Can Police Invoke Section 179 BNSS to Summon Persons Beyond Territorial Limits and Above 65 Years?

Clarification of Section 179 BNSS’s Territorial and Age Restrictions; Quashing of Extraterritorial Summons as Binding Authority for Anti-Corruption Investigations   Summary Category Data Case Name W.P.(Crl.)/8/2025 of Sh. Satish Aparajit Vs State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. CNR GAHC030005622025 Date of Registration 21-08-2025 Decision Date 02-09-2025 Disposal Nature Disposed Of Judgment Author Hon’ble Mrs. Justice […]

Can Rule 7(4) of the Gauhati High Court (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 be validly numbered and require Court Officers appointed from Senior Judicial Assistants to maintain seniority in their original, inferior cadre?

Administrative clarification required to correct numbering under Article 229 and remove unsustainable seniority clause; persuasive authority for service rule amendments   Summary Category Data Case Name WP(C)/7086/2024 of JAHIRUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS CNR GAHC010279812024 Date of Registration 30-12-2024 Decision Date 02-09-2025 Disposal Nature Disposed Of Judgment Author Ashutosh Kumar, […]

Does a Civil Court Retain Jurisdiction to Entertain Title Suits Under Sections 96–97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, and Is a Review Permissible to Correct Errors Apparent on Record?

The Gauhati High Court in Review.Pet./2/2024 held that civil courts are not barred by Sections 96 and 97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, from entertaining private-party title suits—even after a revenue settlement order—and clarified that review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may correct mistakes of fact or law, reaffirming the coordinate-bench precedent […]