Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010082662025 2025:GAU-AS:17327 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./238/2025 1: THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (NHIDCL) AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (MD) HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PTI BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. 2: THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. A FULLY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COMPANY UNDER MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PTI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR 4-PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI 110001 (PRESENTLY SITUATED AT THE 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR TOWER-A WORLD TRADE CENTRE NAUROJI NAGAR NEW DELHI 110029) AND HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GNB ROAD AMBARI IN FRONT OF AGP OFFICE GUWAHATI-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PROJECT) 3: THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) NHIDCL PMU-JORHAT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT C/O SHRI DIGANTA BORA S/O SHRI SONADHAR BORA 2ND FLOOR CHIROTIA HAZARI LINK ROAD PULIBOR JORHAT ASSAM 78500 VERSUS 1: GIRIN DEKA AND 2 OTHERS SON OF LATE BAIDAR DEKA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S GIRIN DEKA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO.7, TRIPURA ROAD, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781022. 2:M/S GIRIN DEKA A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GIRIN DEKA HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO. 7 TRIPURA ROAD KHANAPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 781022 3:M/S CORSAN CORVIAM CONSTRUCTION S.A. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CABBALERO ANDNTE 8-28021 MADRID SPAIN AND REPRESENTED BY Page No.# 2/5 ITS DIRECTORS AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR SPLENDOR TOWER SECTOR 88 GURGAON HARYANA 12201 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. M. Nirola and Mr. K.J. Saikia, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Paul, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. : Mr. B. Das, Advocate. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M. Paul, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. The petitioner/National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) and two others seek review and recall of the judgment dated 09.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.330/2023. 3. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the Sub-Contractors under the Principal Contractor, namely, M/s Corsan Corviam Construction S.A. (hereinafter to be referred as “C.C.C.S.A.”), a Company of Spain. The petitioners had entered into an agreement with the Principal Contractor regarding engineering procurement and construction of 4(four) laning of Jorhat Jhanjhi Section of National Highway 37 in the State of Assam. A tripartite agreement had been entered into between the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MoRTH), C.C.C.S.A. and the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) so Page No.# 3/5 as to facilitate the work. The petitioners permitted the Principal Contractor to enter into a Sub-Contract with other entities for completion of the Project work. 4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2/Sub-Contractors completed the work valued at Rs.11,06,85,770/- and had raised the bills. The petitioners were reluctant to make payment for the reason that against the Principal Contractor, there was a huge amount of dues by way of damages and compensation for the Company having left the work midway, which amount includes the amount for the work completed by respondent Nos.1 & 2. 5. When the payments were not forthcoming, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 preferred a writ petition before this Court vide WP(C) No.7326/2018, which was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to make payments to the Sub-Contractors in view of admission of the fact that the work was executed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to the satisfaction of the petitioners. 6. This order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7326/2018 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Appeal No.330/2023, which was disposed off on 19.08.2024, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the respondent Nos.1 & 2 were given the liberty to invoke Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as the “MSMED Act”) before the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council for resolution with a 30(thirty) days timeline to initiate proceedings. Page No.# 4/5 The Sub-Contractors’ independent claim rights under the MSMED Act thus was upheld which was independent of contractual barriers. 7. The petitioners seek a review of the judgment on the ground that vital materials were overlooked and the MSMED Act was misapplied. The issue whether the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are suppliers and the petitioners are the buyers under Section 2(b) and 2(n) of the MSMED Act is debatable without pleading or evidence, especially since the work was a complete works contract (involving labour, services and materials) and not purely supply based and sub-contracting did not mandate MSME registration benefits. 8. The petitioners seek review under Order 47 Rule 1 for meeting the ends of justice, as public funds are involved. 9. Mr. M. Paul, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, however, submits that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall not have any objection if the amount in question is paid by the petitioners along with simple interests from the date when it was payable. 10. This proposal of respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not evoke any positive response from the petitioners. 11. After having gone through the judgment impugned, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the same in any manner whatsoever. No good ground has been made out for reviewing the judgment in question. Page No.# 5/5 12. The review petition thus fails and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant