AZAD AHMED vs GAUTAM BAISHYA Advocate - MR N C KALITA, ,MD E AHMED,R L CHUTIA,MR. I CHOUDHURY — I.A.(Crl.)/455/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 442. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010084762026

e-Filing Number

30-04-2026

Filing Number

I.A.(Crl.)/3646/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

I.A.(Crl.)/455/2026

Registration Date

02-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

Coram

Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10302 - Interlocutory Application (Criminal) ( 383 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 442

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AZAD AHMED

    Adv. MR. A AHMED, ,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GAUTAM BAISHYA Advocate - MR N C KALITA, ,MD E AHMED,R L CHUTIA,MR. I CHOUDHURY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

    Case Summary: I.A.(Crl.)/455/2026 The Gauhati High Court modified its earlier order dated 31.10.2023 in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The petitioner challenged an erroneous observation that she had already deposited 20% of the Rs. 6 lakh compensation amount ordered by the trial court; the Court found this was factually incorrect and the percentage was to be decided after hearing both parties. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the Court Registry by 08.06.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. I.A.(Crl.)/455/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: I.A.(Crl.)/455/2026 The Gauhati High Court modified its earlier order dated 31.10.2023 in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The petitioner challenged an erroneous observation that she had already deposited 20% of the Rs. 6 lakh compensation amount ordered by the trial court; the Court found this was factually incorrect and the percentage was to be decided after hearing both parties. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the Court Registry by 08.06.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case