Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/250/2026 of BIREN SINGHA Vs M/S GULF ASHLEY MOTORS PVT. LTD. on 21 May 2026
GAHC010093312026 2026:GAU-AS:7160 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/250/2026 BIREN SINGHA S/O SRI BARUN SINGHA, R/O HOUSE NO. 2, UDAY NAGAR, FATASHIL AMBARI TINIALI, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASAM- 781025 VERSUS M/S GULF
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010093312026
2026:GAU-AS:7160
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/250/2026
BIREN SINGHA
S/O SRI BARUN SINGHA, R/O HOUSE NO. 2, UDAY NAGAR, FATASHIL
AMBARI TINIALI, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASAM- 781025
VERSUS
M/S GULF ASHLEY MOTORS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 1, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI- 600032 AND ONE OF ITS WORKSHOP AT DPS SCHOOL
ROAD, NEAR SANSKRIT GURUKUL SCHOOL, AHOMGAON, GARCHUK, GUWHAATI-781035, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKSHOP
MANAGER, SHRI PAPAN SARKAR
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. FZ Mazumder Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. M Sharma
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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
Page No.# 2/2 22.05.2026
Heard Mr. FZ Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The present application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order dated 23.03.2026 passed in IA(C)No.3511/2025 arising out of WP(C)No.3102/2025.
3. In the order dated 23.03.2026, there was a direction upon the petitioner in WP(C)No.3102/2025 to make payment of the dues to the applicant in terms with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent submits that an amount of Rs.6,18,783/- has already been paid to the petitioner.
5. Taking into account the above, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in the instant contempt application, for which, the instant application stands closed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant