Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17390 (GAU)

SADAU ASOM MULA GABHARU SANTHA and 2 ORS v. THE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. and 4 ORS.

CRP/181/2015 · 2025-05-25

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010176432015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/181/2015 SADAU ASOM MULA GABHARU SANTHA and 2 ORS A REGD. SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT EAST SARANIA, GHY-3, REP. BY ITS SECY. NIRU MAHANTA 2: BRIHATTAR MATHGHARIA MULA GABHARU SANTHA KAMRUP BRANCH A BRANCH OF SADAU ASOM MULA GABHARU SANTHA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAPUJI NAGAR SURYADOY PATH NO.1 MATHGHARIA NOONMATI GHY-20 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SMTI KANAKLATA HAZARIKA 3: KANAKLATA HAZARIKA W/O SRI NAREN HAZARIKA R/O NAYAN NAGAR NO.1 MATHGHARIA NOONMATI GHY-20 PRESIDENT OF BRIHATTAR MATHGHARIA MULA GABHARU SANTH VERSUS THE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. and 4 ORS. S.S.ROAD, LAKHTAKIA, GHY-01, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2:SUBHAS CHANDRA DEKA 3:SANJIB DEKA MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S DEKA CONSULTANCY and AGENCY Page No.# 2/3 SERVICES 4:PURABI DEKA NOS. 2 and 3 ARE S/O AND NO. 4 IS THE D/O LT. JADAB DEKA AND ALL THE ABOVE ARE R/O MADHAV DEV NAGAR NEAR BANI KANTA KAKATI GIRLS H.S. SCHOOL REHABARI GHY-8 5:THE BAKIJAI OFFICER OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES/ CERTIFICATE OFFICER GUWAHATI STATFED BUILDING G.M.C. ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- Advocate for the Petitioner : N/A, Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M SARMAR-1, MS.M SAIKIA(R-3),MS.A B KAYASTHA(R-3, 4),MS.I GOHAIN(R-1),MR.R DUBEY(R- 3),MS. D S NEOG (R- 5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 26.05.2025 No one appears for the petitioner on call. The learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier on 22.12.2021, informed this Court that the petitioner had taken back the file and subsequently filed an affidavit to that effect. Thereafter, the matter has been listed on several occasions. However, for the past 4 years there has been no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, nor has any steps been taken to prosecute the revision petition. It is evident from the above, that the petitioner is no longer Page No.# 3/3 interested in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant