GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and 3 ORS
WP(C)/3637/2016 · 2026-05-10
Kaushik Goswami
Writ Petition (Civil)body2016
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2016 DAILYLAW 1204 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2016 DAILYLAW 1204 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010113702016
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3637/2016 GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM, REP. BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ASSAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, TRIPTI TOWER, GANESHGURI, GUWAHATI- 781005. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and 3 ORS A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS ACT, 1970, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7, BIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110607, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2:THE MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK SHAKESPEARE SARANI BRANCH 1ST FLOOR KOLKATA- 700017.
3:IVRCL LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT M-22/3 RT VIJAYNAGAR COLONY HYDERABAD-500057.
4:SIGMA-C INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 52A SHAKESPEARE SARANI
Page No.# 2/2 5TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 501-502 P.S. BENIAPUR KOLKATA- 700017 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R BORPUJARI, MR.B GOGOI,MR.A DEKA,MR.D SAIKIA,MR.P NAYAK Advocate for the Respondent : , MR.D CHOWDHURY(R- 3&4),MS.B CHOWDHURY(R- 3&4)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER Date : 11.05.2026 None appears for the petitioner on call despite the matter being called twice today before this court. It has been observed that this matter has been listed today under the column “Order No Steps”. It further appears that the name of the
learned counsel for the petitioners, i.e., Mr. D. Saikia, Mr. R. Borpujari, Mr. B. Gogoi, Mr. P. Nayak, and Mr. A. Deka, are reflected in the cause list. However, despite the matter having been called twice, there has been no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Office Note dated 26.10.2022 also indicates that there has been no steps taken upon the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner’s counsel. In view of non appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant