THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. SMTI HEMADA SAIKIA and 2 ORS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid directions, this interlocutory application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P HUJURI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N D BHUYAN (R1, R2) Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER
Operative part
26.09.2022 Heard Mr R K Bhatra, learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company and Mr N D Bhuyan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants. By filing this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant/Insurance Company has prayed for condonation of delay of 660 days in preferring the connected appeal, against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 03.10.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 1655/2003. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier they preferred a review petition against the aforesaid order of the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, because of which, there was delay in filing the appeal. The grounds of delay have been shown in paragraphs- 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the condonation petition, which appears to be sufficient to condone the delay. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants has made no objection to condone the delay, as aforesaid. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. In view of above, the prayer made by the applicant/Insurance Company is allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 660 days is condoned. Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list the matter on 03.11.2022, in the admission column. With the aforesaid directions, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid directions, this interlocutory application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.
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.