Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/3078/2026 of THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR Vs SRI ASHOK DAS on 6 October 2026
GAHC010186992026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3078/2026 THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE HEAD, INDIAN OIL AOD, STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, SECTOR-3
GAHC010186992026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3078/2026
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE HEAD, INDIAN OIL
AOD, STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, SECTOR-3 NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-20.
2: THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AOD LIMITED. EAST POINT TOWER
3RD FLOOR
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI 21
DISTRICT - KAMRUPM ASSAM
VERSUS
SRI ASHOK DAS
SON OF LATE MATHURA DAS, RESIDENT OF HAIBORGAON, P.O.
HAIBORGAON, AND DISTRICT NAGAON, PIN 782002 ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M SMITH, Linked Case : Review.Pet./87/2026
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STATE HEAD
INDIAN OIL (AOD)
STATE OFFICE
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
SECTOR-3
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-20
2: THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (AOD) LTD.
EAST POINT TOWER
3RD FLOOR
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-21
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
ASHOK DAS
S/O. LT. MATHURA DAS
R/O. HAIBORGAON
P/O. HAIBORGAON
DIST. NAGAON
PIN-782002
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR D K SARMAH
Advocate for : FOR CAVEATOR appearing for ASHOK DAS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
07-10-2026 Heard Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. V. Rai, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants seeking impleadment of i) The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, Assam, ii) Mousumi
Khaund Das, w/o Sri Parash Moni Das, r/o A.T Road, Vodafone Building, Opposite Haiborgaon High School, Pin- 782002, District- Nagaon, Assam, iii) Parashmoni Das, s/o Late Mathura Das, r/o A.T Road, Vodafone Building, Opposite Haiborgaon High School, Pin-782002, District- Nagaon, Assam and iv) Moina Das. W/o Lt. Girin Das, r/o Haiborgaon, P.O- Haiborgaon, Pin-782002, District- Nagaon, Assam, as Opposite Parties No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in Review Petition No.87/2026.
3. It has been submitted that, having noticed that the entities who were parties in the writ petition had not been impleaded in their entirety in the review petition, the present application has been filed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the entities who were contesting parties in the writ petition are necessary parties in the review petitions also.
5. Although a submission has been made by Mr. M. Smith that some of the parties sought to be impleaded have preferred writ appeal, I am of the view that the same would not be a factor to be taken into account to adjudicate the review petition and would not affect in any manner their participation as parties in the review petition.
6. Accordingly, I.A.(Civil) No.3078/2026 is allowed. The applicants shall file an amended cause title in the review petition before the Registry of this Court impleading the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 as respondents No. 2 to 5 in the review petition within a period of one week from today.
7. The Registry would list the connected review petition after the amended cause title is filed. The cause list shall reflect the name of Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Ms. V. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
8. I.A. accordingly is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant