Gauhati High Court
Anmol Narayan Shrestha vs Haren Gogoi on 12 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010087522026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1453/2026
ANMOL NARAYAN SHRESTHA
S/O. NARAYAN PRADHAN, R/O. HOUSE NO 95 LOKHORA ROAD, NEAR
SOUTH POINT SCHOOL, LUTUMA, P.O. BINOVANAGAR, GUWAHATI
781018, DIST. KAMRUP (M)
VERSUS
HAREN GOGOI
/O LATE MAHESWAR GOGOI, R/O LAXMI NAGAR, RG BARUAH ROAD,
GANESHGURI, GUWAHATI 78105, DIST. KAMRUP M
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, YUVRAJ KASHYAP,SHAHRUKH JAMAL
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, MR. C SARMAH,MR. S R GOGOI
Linked Case : FAO/27/2026
ANMOL NARAYAN SHRESTHA
S/O. NARAYAN PRADHAN
R/O. HOUSE NO 95 LOKHORA ROAD
NEAR SOUTH POINT SCHOOL
LUTUMA
P.O. BINOVANAGAR
GUWAHATI 781018
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
Page No.# 2/9
VERSUS
HAREN GOGOI
S/O LATE MAHESWAR GOGOI
R/O LAXMI NAGAR
RG BARUAH ROAD
GANESHGURI
GUWAHATI 78105
DIST. KAMRUP M
------------
Advocate for : MR H DAS
Advocate for : FOR CAVEATOR appearing for HAREN GOGOI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date - 12.05.2026
1. Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant in connection with FAO No. 27/2026, praying for staying the operation of the order dated 04.04.2026 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 206/2026, arising out of Title Suit No. 420/2025, by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, whereby the present applicant was restrained from using the license of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) Shop namely M/s Maharaja Wine Shop under License No. EX-284/94/31 dated 10.08.1994, which is in the name of the respondent.
3. By the said order, the appellant was also restrained from representing himself as authorized signatory of the respondent on Page No.# 3/9 the basis of aforesaid license before any authority till dependency of the Title Suit No. 420/2025.
4. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the present applicant in the connected appeal, i.e., FAO No. 27/2026.
5. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Interlocutory Application, in brief, are that the present applicant, as plaintiff, has filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 420/2025 against the present respondent Shri Haren Gogoi and one Dilip Gogoi, seeking the relief of declaration that the present applicant is entitled to run the wine shop under the name and style of M/s Maharaja Wine Shop, and also from restraining the defendant No. 1 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the applicant over the suit property.
6. Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent has a license of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) Shop under License No.EX-284/94/31 dated 10.08.1994, situated at Paltan Bazaar, Guwahati, under the name and style of M/s Maharaja Wine Shop.
7. He further submits that by a partnership deed dated 11.07.2005, the defendant No. 1 had allowed the said wine shop to be run by the pro-forma defendant Sh. Indra Newar. He further submits that due to the ill health of the pro-forma defendant, he executed a special power of attorney on 25.09.2025 and appointed the plaintiff as his attorney to run the said wine shop with an intimation to defendant No. 1.
Page No.# 4/9
8. The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that on 18.09.2024, a partnership deed was also executed between the present applicant and the respondent for smooth running of the wine shop and the said deed was notarized on 26.05.2025 before the notary public, Kamrup (M). However, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said partnership deed is in the possession of the present respondent and a prayer has been made before the Trial Court to direct the respondent to produce the said partnership deed.
9. He further submits that in pursuant to the terms of the said partnership deed, the present applicant also paid an amount of Rs.38,000/- to the respondent as an advance of the average sale for the month of June 2025. However, no receipt has been given by the respondent to the present applicant in spite of several requests made by him. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent thereafter stopped honouring the agreement entered into between him and the present applicant on 18.09.2024, as such, the applicant was compelled to approached the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1 by filing Title Suit No. 420/2025.
10. He submits that in the said suit, the present respondent filed a separate written statement as well as the counterclaim. The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that in the said suit, i.e., Title Suit No. 420/2025, where the respondent, Haren Gogoi, has also filed a counterclaim, he later filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Page No.# 5/9 Procedure, 1908 praying for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the present applicant from using the license which is in the name of the respondent and also restraining the present applicant from representing as authorized signatory of the respondent before the authorities. The said case was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 206/2026.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant did not even file any written objection against the injunction application filed by the respondent, neither he has filed any written statement against the counterclaim. He also submits that the present applicant or his engaged counsel was also not heard on the application for grant of temporary injunction in Misc. (J) Case No. 206/2026 and without giving an opportunity of being heard, the Misc. (J) Case No. 206/2026 was disposed of by passing the impugned order restraining the present applicant from using the license as well as representing as the authorized signatory of the respondent.
12. He submits that since the aforesaid order has been impugned by the present applicant in the connected appeal, i.e., FAO No. 27/2026 and since the said appeal has already been admitted, the operation of the impugned order may be stayed during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, otherwise the applicant would be highly prejudiced.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the impugned order, the Trial Court has wrongly reflected that the Court has heard the learned counsel for both parties at length. Whereas, Page No.# 6/9 from the order dated 06.03.2026, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 206/2026, it is apparent that the learned counsel for the present applicant was not heard by the Trial Court and on that day and the case was fixed for delivery of order on 04.04.2026.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the stay as prayed for, is not granted, the applicant would suffer great prejudice as well as substantial loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, hence, he has prayed for staying the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the connected appeal.
15. On the other hand, Mr. S. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present Interlocutory Application filed by the applicant is not maintainable in its present form as the applicant has failed to mention the provisions of law under which the present Interlocutory Application has been filed. He submits that there is a requirement of law to state in the application the section and statute under which same is made and the said requirement is not a mere formality. He submits that non- compliance of the statutory prescription of mentioning the provisions of law in the application under which the same is filed only shows that the applicant is not careful and cautious in complying with the statutory provisions and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Jeet Mohinder Singh Vs. Harminder Singh and Another" reported in (2004) 6 SCC 26.
Page No.# 7/9
16. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent No. 1 is the licensee of the IMFL "OFF" Shop, namely M/s Maharaja Wine Shop. He submits that as per the provisions of Excise Acts and Rules made thereunder only a licensee is authorized to do the business of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and any assignment of the license to a third party is not permissible without taking approval of the competent authority.
17. He submits that under Rule 53 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016, the license granted under the Assam Excise Act, 2000 is a non- transferrable license. He submits that if the appellant/applicant is not restrained from using the license which has been granted in the name of the present respondent, he will continue to violate the provisions of Rule 53 (2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 as such same may not be allowed. He submits that stay of the impugned order during the pendency of the connected appeal would give a license to the present applicant to continue to violate the statutory provisions as contained in Rule 53 (2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016.
18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides as well as gone through the materials available on record.
19. The Rule 2 of the Chapter IV of the Gauhati High Court Rules provides that in every application presented to the High Court, there should be stated immediately after the cause title, the section and statute under which the application is made, however, in the instant case, the stay application filed by the present applicant has not Page No.# 8/9 complied with the said requirement of the Gauhati High Court Rules. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of "Jeet Mohinder Singh Vs. Harminder Singh and Another" (Supra), though the nomenclature of an application is really not material and the substance is to be seen, yet it cannot be said that a party shall be permitted to violate this procedural requirement of rules with impunity. There is a purpose in indicating the nomenclature in a clear and precise manner.
20. As regards the trial Court was right or wrong in passing the impugned judgment, the said question as to be decided in the connected appeal, i.e., FAO No. 27/2026 and any discussion on merits of the case while considering the stay application may cause prejudice to the party, against whom any observation is made in the instant order, in the connected appeal. Hence, this Court is refraining from going into the merits of the case, at this stage.
21. However, apparently it appears that the excise license is not in the name of the present applicant but in the name of the respondent. It also appears that the partnership deed on the basis of which the present applicant is seeking to continue to use the license which has been granted in the name of the present respondent is also not on record.
22. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of stay under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made out by the present applicant. As such, the present Interlocutory Application is dismissed.
Page No.# 9/9
23. It is, however, made clear that observations made in the present order shall not have bearing while deciding the connected appeal and the said appeal i.e., FAO No.27/2026 shall be decided on its own merit.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant