Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010219132025 2025:GAU-AS:14549 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No.: WP(C)/5416/2025 M/S ASEAN AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR - SRI TARIK TALOM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O-TAROK TALOM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H/NO-HARMONY APARTMENT VIP ROAD P.O/ NOONMATI P.S. -SATGAON GUWAHATI-26 DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS CANARA BANK AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE 112 JC ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560002. 2:DIVISIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE 1ST FLOOR DEE BEE GRANDE PANJABARI ROAD SIXMILE GUWAHATI 781022 ASSAM 3:BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK PASIGHAT BRANCH Page No.# 2/4 OMAN SHOPPING COMPLEX FIRST FLOOR PASIGHAT MAIN MARKET EAST SIANG PASIGHAT ARUNACHAL PRADESH-791102. .....RESPONDENTS. 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MALIGAON NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI ASSAM. .......PROFORMA RESPONDENT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Ms. N. Saikia, Advocate Advocate for the respondent (s) : Mr. G. Das, SC, Canara Bank Mr. B. Chakraborty, SC, Railways Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Ms. N. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Canara Bank and Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Railway Administration. Page No.# 3/4 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondent Canara Bank for release of the fixed deposit amounting to Rs.45,85,000/- with renewable interest at three times the bank rate as per Section 16 of the MSME Act, 2006. 3. It has been submitted at the bar that pursuant to various litigations filed before this Court, an arbitration proceedings is presently going on between the petitioner and the respondent Railways. 4. It is the opinion of this Court that if such arbitration proceedings are going on, it would not be in the interest of justice for this Court to entertain this present writ petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) seeking appropriate interim directions, if so advised. 5. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, dismisses the instant writ petition on the ground of being not entertained. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Arbitral Tribunal or the Court under Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1996 seeking interim directions, if so advised. 6. It is observed for the sake of clarity that this Court has not Page No.# 4/4 decided about the entitlement of the petitioner. It shall be absolutely with the domain of the appropriate forum to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief(s) sought for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2025.11.21 13:06:11 +05'30'