Disposed

Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. v. M/S Tinsukia Vastra Bhandar

Gauhati HC10 Feb 2020I.A.(Civil)/216/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking permission for the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 2,00,000 deposited with the registry as interim security, which remained after the impugned order was quashed. The court granted permission unopposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to withdraw Rs. 2,00,000 deposited with the registry; Registry directed to issue cheque within 7 days.

Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. Vs M/S Tinsukia Vastra… — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010017602020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 216/2020

¶5

1:ANDREW YULE and COMPANY LTD

¶6

A CO. REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT YULE HOUSE, 8, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD SARANI, KOLKATA 700001

¶7

2: TINKHONG TEA ESTATE A UNIT OF ANDREW YULE AND CO. LTD. P.O. AND P.S. TINKHONG DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN 786612 ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:M/S TINSUKIA VASTRA BHANDAR

¶10

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS AT THANA ROAD, TINSUKIA TOWN, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K AGARWAL

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P J SAIKIA

¶13

Linked Case : CRP 349/2012

¶14

1:ANDREW YULE and COMPANY LTD. and ANR.

¶15

A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT YULE HOUSE 8

¶16

DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD SARANI

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

KOLKATA- 700001

¶19

2: TINKONG TEA ESTATE A UNIT OF ANDREW YULE and COMPANY LIMITED P.O. AND P.S. TINKHONG DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN- 786612 ASSAM. VERSUS

¶20

1:M/S TINSUKIA VASTRA BHANDAR

¶21

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ITS BUSINESS AT THANA ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM.

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M DEY Advocate for the Respondent :

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 10-02-2020

¶26

Heard Mr. K Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the applicants/petitioners. Also heard Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

The order dated 31.07.2012 of the learned Civil Judge Dibrugarh in Misc.(J) Case No.1/2012 arising out of Money Execution Case No.2/2007 was assailed in the accompanying CRP No.349/2012. While admitting the said petition, the applicants/petitioners were required to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Registry for the purpose of the interim order.

¶28

In the meantime, by the judgment and order dated 11.11.2019, CRP No.349/2012 was finally disposed of by setting aside the order dated 31.07.2012. But while giving a final consideration to CRP No.349/2012, although at the interim stage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

was deposited with the Registry but inadvertently the said aspect escaped the notice of all concerned. Consequently, the order impugned was interfered but the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- remained with the Registry.

¶31

This application is preferred for allowing the applicant/petitioners in CRP No.349/2012 to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited with the Registry.

¶32

Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel does not object to such prayer made in this application.

¶33

Accordingly it is ordered that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-deposited by the applicants/petitioners as per receipt dated 13.06.2013, a copy of which is available at page 14, Annexure-D to the application be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant/petitioners and the Registry will issue a cheque as required in the name of the applicant/petitioners for the purpose.

¶34

The aforesaid requirement be done within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of the applicants approaching the Registry.

¶35

Interlocutory application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. v. M/S Tinsukia Vastra Bhandar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. v. M/S Tinsukia Vastra Bhandar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Das Vs Sri Kishore Sharma and 3 Ors.

M/S P.K Store and 2 Ors. Vs the State Bank of India

Sarat Ch. Kalita Vs Gobinda Kalita and 2 Ors.

Makan Kataki and 2 Ors. Vs Nilamoni Kataki and Anr.

The Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd. Vs on Death of Rebati Prasad Sarma His Legal Heirs Are and 6 Ors.

National Highway Authority of India Vs Shri Joymonta Thousen and Anr.