ASSAM GOVERNMENT MARKETING CORPORATION LTD AND ANR v. LONI BHAGAWATI
MC/72/2024 · 2025-03-02
Michael Zothankhuma
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18673 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18673 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010198742024
2025:GAU-AS:2186
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/72/2024 ASSAM GOVERNMENT MARKETING CORPORATION LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN, G.N.B ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI 01, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. VERSUS LONI BHAGAWATI W/O SRI DIPAK BHAGAWATI, RESIDENT OF 18, JANAPATH HATIGAON, PS HATIGOAN, GUWAHATI 781038, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. PRAGJYOTIKA BHAWAN G.N.B ROAD AMBARI GUWAHATI 01 DIST KAMRUP M ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DHAR, Advocate for the Respondent : MR K J SAIKIA (R-1), MR. A K GUPTA(R-1)
Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 03-03-2025 Heard Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the applicants, who prays for restoration of Review Petition No. 138/2022, which was dismissed for non- prosecution. 2. The applicants’ case is that due to the counsel for the applicants having been disengaged and the applicants not having engaged a new counsel immediately, the case had been dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. On a query made to the counsel for the applicants as to what would be the correct amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner, if the review petition was restored to file and if it was allowed, the counsel submits that the amount would be not beyond 7 lakhs. 4. Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits that he does not object to the application being allowed, provided that the applicants should deposit another 3 lakhs, beyond the 4 lakhs already deposited by the applicants. 5. On considering the fact that it was the applicants’ fault due to which the review petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, this Court is of the view that the applicants should deposit some money for restoring the review petition. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 138/2022 is recalled, subject to the applicants depositing another 3 lakhs before the Registry of this Court, within a period of 1 (one) month from today. It is made clear that if the deposit of 3 lakhs is not made by the applicants within 1 (one) month from today, the present application will
Page No.# 3/3 automatically stand dismissed. 7. The Registry shall, on receipt of the said amount, list the review petition before the Court. 8.
The Misc Case is allowed subject to the condition mentioned above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant