5: Kamal Boro vs M/S. North East Refractory And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2380 Gua

                                                             Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010105982019




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

                           Case No. : CRP/70/2019

         ON DEATH OF BHATESHWAR BORO HIS LEGAL HEIRS - THANESWARI
         BORO AND 4 ORS.
         KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

         1.1: SMT. THANESWARI BORO
         W/O. LT. BHATESWAR BORO
          R/O. KATAHBARI
          P.S. GORCHUK
          GUWAHATI-781035
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM.

         1.2: SMT. SITA BORO
          D/O. LT. BHATESWAR BORO
          R/O. KATAHBARI
          P.S. GORCHUK
          GUWAHATI-781035
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM.

         1.3: SMT. RITA BORO
          D/O. LT. BHATESWAR BORO
          R/O. KATAHBARI
          P.S. GORCHUK
          GUWAHATI-781035
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM.

         1.4: ANANDA BORO
          S/O. LT. BHATESWAR BORO
          R/O. KATAHBARI
          P.S. GORCHUK
          GUWAHATI-781035
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3

             ASSAM.

            1.5: KAMAL BORO
             S/O. LT. BHATESWAR BORO
             R/O. KATAHBARI
             P.S. GORCHUK
             GUWAHATI-781035
             DIST. KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            M/S. NORTH EAST REFRACTORY AND MINERALS
            REP. BY BISHWAJIT KAR (PROPRIETOR) S/O. LT. HRITENDRA LAL KAR,
            R/O. TARUN NAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781005.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P UPADHYAY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

19.07.2022

Heard Mr. A. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent.

The LCR has not been received.

Registry is directed to requisition the LCR.

It further appears that vide the order dated 06.12.2019, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order.

Taking into account that the counterclaim of the petitioners has been dismissed, the question of granting the stay of the operation of the Page No.# 3/3

impugned judgment and order does not arise.

Consequently, the said order dated 06.12.2019 is vacated.

Let the matter be listed after receipt of the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant