Disposed

Sanjay Associates and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026WP(C)/5000/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a notice threatening contract termination was dismissed as premature. The Court directed the respondent to take a final decision after considering the petitioner's reply, ensuring compliance with the contract's terms and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of by directing the OIL authorities to take a final decision on termination while considering the petitioner's reply and complying with the contract terms.

Sanjay Associates and Anr. Vs the Union of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010195382026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5000/2026

¶6

SANJAY ASSOCIATES AND ANR

¶7

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE JOYDEEP DAS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 2 (NEAR RAILWAY CABIN), NEW SUNDER NAGAR, PANKI, KANPUR, U.P. PIN- 208020

¶8

2: MR JOYDEEP DAS SON OF LATE HARENDRA DAS RESIDENT OF SAMPRITI LANE DULIAJAN NUMBER-2 ANANDAPARA P.O.-ANANDAPARA DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786692 REPRESENTING M/S SANJAY ASSOCIATES AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE /PETITIONE

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, JANAPATH ROAD, NEW DELHI 110001.

¶12

2:THE OIL INDIA LTD

¶13

A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR-LEARNING DEPARTMENT OIL DULIAJAN DIBRUGARH PIN- 786602.

¶14

3:THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

HR LEARNING DEPARTMENT OIL DULIAJAN DIBRUGARH PIN-786602.

¶17

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER CONTRACTS AND SERVICES HR-LEARNING DEPARTMENT OIL DULIAJAN DIBRUGARH PIN- 786602.

¶18

5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HRL HR-LEARNING DEPARTMENT OIL INDIA LTD. DULIAJAN DIBRUGARH PIN 786602.

¶19

6:THE SENIOR OFFICER HR-LEARNING DEPARTMENT HR-LEARNING DEPARTMENT OIL DULIAJAN DIBRUGARH PIN-786602

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH, MR. N J GOGOI

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, OIL

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 14.09.2026

¶25

Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited.

¶26

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken for final consideration at the

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

motion stage itself and is being disposed of by this present order.

¶29

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition, has assailed a notice dated 22.08.2026, by which the Petitioner Firm, was directed to submit its reply as to why the contract involved, shall not be terminated in view of the repeated non satisfactory performance of the petitioner firm. The petitioner contends that the said notice has not been issued by complying with the provisions of clause 44.5 of the terms and conditions of the contract agreement.

¶30

4. The petitioner firm, herein, in pursuance to a tender process, awarded vide a Letter of Award dated 16.04.2025, the contract for providing catering services for Human Resource Learning Department of the Oil India Limited. Thereafter, an agreement was signed between the Oil India Limited Authorities and the Petitioner Firm on 14.06.2025, and the petitioner projects that, it was providing the services in accordance with Letter of Award issued to it. During the course of discharge of the said contract by the petitioner, certain lacking in the services rendered being noticed, notices came to be issued to the Petitioner Firm by Oil India Limited authorities, requiring it to take corrective actions. Notices were also issued by highlighting that in the event, the services rendered are not improved, the Oil India authorities would take recourse to the provisions of clause 44.5 of the contract agreement, for the purpose of the termination of the same.

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

5. This Court is also apprised by the learned counsel for the Oil India Limited authorities that in a joint meeting held on 07.04.2026, the Petitioner Firm had undertaken to rectify all identified deficiencies within 15 (fifteen) days starting from 07.04.2026. However, the said inconsistencies not having been redressed, OIL authorities issued to the Petitioner Firm a notice dated 22.08.2026. In the said notice, reference was made to the earlier notices, issued to the petitioner, requiring it to take corrective measures in the matter. The notice dated 22.08.2026, by referring to the provisions of clause 44.5 of the contract agreement, had granted 07 (seven) days time, to the Petitioner Firm, for submitting its response in the matter and for further consequential steps, as would be mandated to be taken in the matter, the petitioner had responded to the said notice issued on 26.08.2026.

¶33

6. It is however, submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that no final decision in pursuance to the notice dated 22.08.2026, has been taken till date.

¶34

7. As the final decision in the matter is to be taken by the respondent Oil India Limited, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is premature. The Oil India Limited authorities, while taking its decision in the matter in pursuance to the notice dated 22.08.2026, would be required to reckon the contentions raised by the Petitioner Firm in the order dated 22.08.2026 and only thereafter, it would be permissible for it to take a final decision in the matter.

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

8. In view of the above position, as obtaining in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition need not be detained any further for adjudication and can be disposed of by requiring the OIL authorities to take a final decision in the matter in pursuance to the notice dated 22.08.2026, by also reckoning the contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply dated 26.08.2026.

¶37

9. The decision that would be arrived at in the matter be communicated to the petitioner and it is needless to say that such decision should be so arrived at by complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Oil India Limited.

¶38

10. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Sanjay Associates and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Associates and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases