Gauhati High Court
WA/280/2026 of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. Vs DEBARUN BHATTACHARJEE on 27 August 2026
GAHC010126942026 2026:GAU-AS:12417 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/280/2026 BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT LOKMANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE- 411005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2: BANK OF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010126942026
2026:GAU-AS:12417
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/280/2026 BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT LOKMANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE- 411005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2: BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE REPRESENTED BY MR. AKKABATHULA SANDEEP AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O AKKABATHULA JACOB CHIEF MANAGER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS DEBARUN BHATTACHARJEE S/O SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE, R/O AJC BOSE LANE, MEHERPUR, HOUSE NO. 22, SILCHAR, ASSAM-788015 For the appellants : Mr. A. Khanikar, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. A. Ganguly, Advocate
Page No.# 2/2
– B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28-08-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. After some arguments, the learned Advocate for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw this appeal as the respondent has already been reinstated in service and, an undertaking has been given by the learned Advocate for the respondent that he shall not claim 50% of the basic pay, which he had claimed for the period when he had not worked. However, there is no dispute with respect to allowing the respondent the continuity of his service. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant