Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Loni Bhagawati — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Loni Bhagawati — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Misc Case is allowed: the order dated 02.02.2024 dismissing Review Petition No. 138/2022 for non-prosecution is recalled, subject to the applicants depositing a further Rs. 3 lakhs with the Registry within one month, failing which the application stands automatically dismissed; on receipt of the deposit the Registry to list the review petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether Review Petition No. 138/2022, dismissed for non-prosecution, should be restored to file, and if so on what conditions.

Court's answer

Since the dismissal of the review petition for non-prosecution was due to the applicants' own fault, the applicants must deposit some money as a condition for restoring the review petition.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 138/2022 is recalled, subject to the applicants depositing another Rs. 3 lakhs before the Registry of the Court within one month from the date of the order.

Key takeaways

If the deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs is not made within one month, the present application will automatically stand dismissed.ratio¶24
Upon receipt of the deposited amount, the Registry is to list the review petition before the Court.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Misc. Case (MC/72/2024) — Restoration of review petition dismissed for non-prosecution — Gauhati High Court (Michael Zothankhuma, J., 03-03-2025) allowed the application filed by Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd and Anr and recalled the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 138/2022, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the applicants' fault (their counsel having been disengaged without immediate re-engagement). Restoration was made conditional on the applicants depositing a further Rs. 3 lakhs with the Registry within one month, over and above the Rs. 4 lakhs already deposited; failing the deposit, the application was to stand automatically dismissed. On receipt of the deposit, the Registry was directed to list the review petition before the Court. Counsel for the applicants stated that the gratuity payable to the respondent, if the review petition were restored and allowed, would not exceed Rs. 7 lakhs; the sole respondent did not object to restoration subject to the deposit.

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 nonprosecution.

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