STATE OF MANIPUR AND 2 OTHERS LAISANGBAM MONOMALA DEVI vs Laishram Amusana Singh and 8 ors Advocate - MR. RK MILAN — MC(WA)/33/2026
Disposed: --Withdrawn on 04th June 2026.
CNR: MNHC010014262026
e-Filing Number
03-06-2026
Filing Number
MC(WA)/1265/2026
Filing Date
03-Jun-2026
Registration No
MC(WA)/33/2026
Registration Date
03-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
04-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
--Withdrawn
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF MANIPUR AND 2 OTHERS LAISANGBAM MONOMALA DEVI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Laishram Amusana Singh and 8 ors Advocate - MR. RK MILAN
-
2.Shri Rajkumar Sanahal Singh
Adv. MR. RK MILAN
-
3.Kumari Dr. Thongam Phajabi Devi
Adv. MR. RK MILAN
-
4.Shri Senjam Deben Singh
Adv. MR. RK MILAN
-
5.Shri Thokchom Tombi Singh
Adv. MR. RK MILAN
-
6.Shri Ningthoujam Dhaneshwar Singh
Adv. MR. RK MILAN
-
7.Shri Wairokpam Devbrata Meitei
Adv. MR. RK MILAN
-
8.The Thambal Marik College through the Secretary of Thambal Marik College Society,
-
9.The Standard College, through the Secretary of the Standard College Society
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-Jun-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Mr Justice Ahanthem Bimol SinghView PDF
The High Court of Manipur allowed withdrawal of the Miscellaneous Case with preservation of the State's rights and contentions. The court noted procedural defects: the MC sought to add two respondents to an existing Writ Appeal but failed to array the existing nine respondents, and directed the Registry to exercise stricter scrutiny. The court permitted the applicants to refile the MC with necessary corrections, provided it is filed with this order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. MC(WA)/33/2026
The High Court of Manipur allowed withdrawal of the Miscellaneous Case with preservation of the State's rights and contentions. The court noted procedural defects: the MC sought to add two respondents to an existing Writ Appeal but failed to array the existing nine respondents, and directed the Registry to exercise stricter scrutiny. The court permitted the applicants to refile the MC with necessary corrections, provided it is filed with this order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts