MADHU SINGHANIA v. SARALA DEVI LAHOTY @ SARLA LAHOTI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
interlocutory application stands allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Judgment
3: MADHU SINGHANIA WIFE OF SRI PRAMODSINGHANIA DIRECTOROF PRIYANKA ESIATES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LINITED AND KARTA OF PRAMOD SINGHANIA HUF RESIDENT OF SILVER APARTMENT 4THFLOOR PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD Page No.# 2/ REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008. AND OFFICE AT M/S. TRADESWORTH STEEL CO. SATI JAYMATI ROAD TOWER ATHGAON HANUMAN NEAR GUWAHATI-781001. 4: PRAMOD SINGHANIA HUF DOING PROPRIETORIAL BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA SRI PRAMOD SINGHANIA SON OF LATE MOHAN LAL AGARWAL @MOHAN LAL SINGHANIA DIRECTOR OF PRIYANKA ESIATES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LINITED AND KARTA OF PRAMOD SINGHANIA HUF RESIDENT OF SILVER APARTMENT 4THFLOOR PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008. AND OFFICE AT M/S. TRADESWORTH STEEL CO. SATI JAYMATI ROAD TOWER ATHGAON HANUMAN NEAR GUWAHATI-781001. 5: PRIYANKA SINGHANIA DAUGHTER OF SRI PRAMOD SINGHANIA MEMBER OF M/S. PRAMOD SINGHANIA HUF RESIDENT OF SILVER APARTMENT 4H FLOOR PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008. AND OFFICE AT M/S. TRADESWOTH STEEL CO. SATI JAYMATI ROAD NEAR HANUMAN TOWER ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001. 6: GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION CO. A PROPRIETORIAL CONCERN OF M/S. PRAMOD SINGHANIA HUF RESIDENT OF SILVERAPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008 AND OFFICE AT M/S TRADESWOTH STEEL CO. Page No.# 3/ SATI JAYMATI ROAD NEAR HANUMAN TOWER ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781007. VERSUS SARALA DEVI LAHOTY @ SARLA LAHOTI WIFE OF SHREEBHAGWAN LAHOTY RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 6-A PRIYANKA APARTMENT S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR KRISHNA KUNJ BEHIND DEEVA BOUTIQUE PHOOL BAGAN MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781009 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R K BHUYAN Advocate for : appearing for SARALA DEVI LAHOTY @ SARLA LAHOTI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date : 23.07.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicants and also heard Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the sole respondent/opposite party.
This interlocutory application, is preferred by the applicants under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, for staying the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 469/2012, whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Page No.# 4/
Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the connected regular first appeal has already been admitted by this Court and notice has been issued and record has already been called for and as such, there is a requirement for staying the impugned judgment and decree, till disposal of the RFA and he is ready to deposit 40% of the decretal amount before the Registry of this Court as security.
Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the sole respondent/opposite party submits that the applicants applicants may be directed to deposit 50% of the decretal amount since the respondent/opposite party has been residing in a rented premise.
Operative part
Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this interlocutory application stands allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 469/2012, stands stayed till disposal of the RFA, subject however to depositing of 40% of decretal amount before the Registry of this Court within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today.
Mr. Khataniar, further submits that after the security amount being deposited before the Registry of this Court, the respondent may be allowed to withdraw the same.
Prayer is accordingly allowed.
In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: interlocutory application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 41 r. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 23 Jul 2025. The bench was ROBIN PHUKAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.