M/s Sahabuddin Siddique and Anr vs The Union of India and 4 Ors Advocate - Marto Kato, ,DSGI,GA (AP) — WA/32/2025

Case under Gauhati High Court Rules Section 5. Disposed: --Dismissed on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC040010872025

Filing Number

WA/645/2025

Filing Date

01-Jul-2025

Registration No

WA/32/2025

Registration Date

01-Jul-2025

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita , Honourable Mr. Justice Anjan Moni Kalita

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita , Honourable Mr. Justice Anjan Moni Kalita

Bench Type

Division Bench

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Dismissed

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Gauhati High Court Rules Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/s Sahabuddin Siddique and Anr

    Adv. P J Saikia,Kemo Lollen,Kemo Lollen, ,Ravi Shankar Mishra,Kemo Lollen

  2. 2.Sahabuddin Siddique

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Union of India and 4 Ors Advocate - Marto Kato, ,DSGI,GA (AP)

  2. 2.The Border Road Organization

  3. 3.The Chief Engineer

  4. 4.The Commander

  5. 5.The Deputy Commissioner

  6. 6.Valecha Engineering Ltd

  7. 7.Canara Bank

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita,honourable Mr. Justice Anjan Moni KalitaView PDF

    Case Summary: WA/32/2025 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that relegated them to civil court for claims regarding liquidated damages and bank guarantee invocation. Key Reasoning: The court held that disputes over breach of contract and compensation under Sections 73-74 of the Indian Contract Act require determination by an adjudicatory forum (civil court or arbitration tribunal), not writ court. Since the appellants lacked direct privity with the EPC contract and disputed factual issues existed (completion percentage: appellants claimed 49%, respondents claimed 26.21%), these matters were inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. The court upheld the single judge's direction to issue work completion certificates based on joint verification and release pending bills accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita,honourable Mr. Justice Anjan Moni KalitaView PDF

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung , Honourable Mrs. Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung,honourable Mrs. Justice Yarenjungla LongkumerView PDF

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung , Honourable Mrs. Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer

  7. 19-Jan-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung,honourable Mrs. Justice Yarenjungla LongkumerView PDF

  8. 19-Jan-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo , Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung

  9. 04-Dec-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo,honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  10. 04-Dec-2025

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund , Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung

  11. 17-Nov-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund,honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  12. 17-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung , Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak Ete

  13. 22-Oct-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung,honourable Mr. Justice Kardak EteView PDF

  14. 22-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 03-Sep-2025

    Honble Mr. Justice Soumitra Saikia,honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  16. 01-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/32/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WA/32/2025 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that relegated them to civil court for claims regarding liquidated damages and bank guarantee invocation. Key Reasoning: The court held that disputes over breach of contract and compensation under Sections 73-74 of the Indian Contract Act require determination by an adjudicatory forum (civil court or arbitration tribunal), not writ court. Since the appellants lacked direct privity with the EPC contract and disputed factual issues existed (completion percentage: appellants claimed 49%, respondents claimed 26.21%), these matters were inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. The court upheld the single judge's direction to issue work completion certificates based on joint verification and release pending bills accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case