Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
Judgment
Judgment
MC 2879/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. TALAPTRA Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant. Al so heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.9. Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the r espondent Nos. 5 and 8 are not the necessary parties in this proceeding of condo nation of delay and made an oral application for striking off the name of the re spondent Nos. 5 and 8 only from this proceeding for condonation of delay. The prayer is allowed. The names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 8 is struck off from this proceeding for condonation of delay. The service on the respondents is complete. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2010 as passed in MAC Case No.26/2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivasaga r. The causes of delay has been assigned in paragraphs 4,5 and6 of this petition. T hose causes constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not raise any objection in con doning the delay. As such, the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned and accordingly, this Misc. case stands disposed of.
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.