Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14716 (GAU)

AMRIT DOWERAH v. TATA TEA LTD AND 2 ORS

CRP(IO)/230/2025 · 2025-08-03

Robin Phukan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010134792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/230/2025 AMRIT DOWERAH S/O LATE HARI PRASAD DOWERAH, R/O LONGJONG GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- NAHARKATIA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786610 VERSUS TATA TEA LTD AND 2 ORS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BISPOPLOFRAY ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, PIN-700020 2:THE AMALGAMATED TEA COMPANY ESTATE COMPANY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY INCORPORATED IN ENGLAND AND ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN KOLKATA CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF TEA PLANTATION AND MANUFACTURE IN INDIA AND OWNING AMONGST OTHERS NAHARKATIA TEA ESTATE P.O.- NAHARKATIA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM-786610 3:TEA FIN LAY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA AND HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BOMBAY HOUSE 34 HOMY REDY STREET FORT BOMBAY-400023 CARRYING ON TEA PLANTATION AND MANUFACTURE AND OWNING AMONGST OTHERS NAHARKATIA TEA ESTATE P.O.- NAHARKATIA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM-78661 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS, I J SINGPHO,MR H P GUWALA,H P NEOG Page No.# 2/2 Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N C DAS, MR. A DAS,MS. M DEVI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. J. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. It is submitted at the bar that the decree has been passed and the same has already been executed pursuant to order of this court dated 23.06.2025, and a report to that effect has also been received from the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naharkatia. It appears from the order dated 23.06.2025 and also from the report dated 25.07.2025, of the Junior Administrative Officer, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naharkatia that the decree has been passed and the same has already been executed and the petitioner has also been put into the possession of the decretal land. In view of above, this matter becomes infructuous and accordingly, the same stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant