Gauhati High Court
M/S Mahadev Traders vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd And 2 Ors on 18 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010172712025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/191/2025
M/S MAHADEV TRADERS,
A REGISTERED OFFICE AT ROOM NO 15/C NEW MARKET TINSUKIA PO
AND PS AND DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SHRI DEEPAK KANU SON OF SHRI RAMU KANU RESIDENT OF DEODHAI
DISTRICT SIBSAGAR ASSAM, 785680
VERSUS
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND 2 ORS
ASSAM OIL DIVISION A GOVT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9 ALI YAVAR
ZUNG MARG BANDRA EAST MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
2:THE CHAIRMAN
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ASSAM OIL DIVISION G-9 ALI YAVAR
ZUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI
3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ASSAM OIL DIVISION PO DIGBOI
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MS K BORAH,MS S MOCHAHARI,MR. S
DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C,
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 18.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.
2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant M/s Mahadev
Traders, towards impugning the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2025
passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Tinsukia in
Money Appeal Case No. 01/2023 whereby reversed the judgment
and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia
whereby the Money Suit filed by the present appellant, i.e., Money Suit
No. 7/2008 decreed in favour of the present appellant.
3. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court allowed
the appeal filed by the present respondents and dismissed the claim of the
present appellant.
4. After considering the materials available on record as well as
submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the
following substantial questions of law are formulated in this case:
i. Whether the First Appellate Court came to a perverse finding
that the claim of the appellant/plaintiff was barred by law of
limitation in as much as vehicle hired by the respondents authority
was released only on 24.05.2006 and, therefore, whether the period
of limitation for filing money suit by the present appellant would run
only from the said date contrary to what has been upheld by the
First Appellate Court?
Page No.# 3/3
ii. Whether the finding of the First Appellate
to the effect that the claim of the present appellant in Money Suit
No. 7/2008 was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party is
perverse?
5. Issue notice to the respondents.
6. Since, Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel has already appeared
on behalf of the respondents, no formal notice need to be issued to the
respondents.
7. Let the records of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court be requisitioned from the concerned court.
8. Let this matter be listed after four weeks on receipt of the
aforesaid records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
