SMT. KABITA BHARALI vs TITIP GOGOI Advocate - S K PODDAR, ,MR. C SHARMA,MR. R GHOSH — CRP(IO)/406/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section ART. 227. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: GAHC010209792025

e-Filing Number

11-09-2025

Filing Number

CRP(IO)/12024/2025

Filing Date

11-Sep-2025

Registration No

CRP(IO)/406/2025

Registration Date

19-Sep-2025

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10244 - Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 209 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 02-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section ART. 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT. KABITA BHARALI

    Adv. MS. M K BROWN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TITIP GOGOI Advocate - S K PODDAR, ,MR. C SHARMA,MR. R GHOSH

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Robin PhukanView PDF

    Case Adjourned In CRP(IO)/406/2025 before the Gauhati High Court, the matter was adjourned for one week (to be listed after 29.04.2026) as the petitioner failed to appear on the date of hearing, though the respondent's counsel was present. The court warned that in case of subsequent non-representation by the petitioner, appropriate orders would follow. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Robin PhukanView PDF

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar SharmaView PDF

  7. 22-Sep-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti SaikiaView PDF

  8. 11-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP(IO)/406/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Adjourned In CRP(IO)/406/2025 before the Gauhati High Court, the matter was adjourned for one week (to be listed after 29.04.2026) as the petitioner failed to appear on the date of hearing, though the respondent's counsel was present. The court warned that in case of subsequent non-representation by the petitioner, appropriate orders would follow. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case