Allowed

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Purabi Mahanta Goswami and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Jun 2018I.A.(Civil)/350/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an order seeking return of records to a Tribunal for a review petition. Held that law permits review despite appeal pendency. Directed Registry to send a photocopy of the 'A' File to the Tribunal for admission hearing.

What did the court decide?

Registry to send a photocopy of the 'A' File to the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati.

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Purabi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010020312018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 350/2018 In MAC App. 72/2017

¶6

1:M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

¶7

REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S.ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GHY-5

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:PURABI MAHANTA GOSWAMI AND 5 ORS

¶10

W/O- LT HIRANYA NARAYAN GOSWAMI, R/O- H/NO. 25, SANKARDEV NAGAR, PANJABARI, P.S. DISPUR, GHY-37, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM AND PERMANENT R/O-VILL- JURIA, DO-GAON, P.S. JURIA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, THE CLAIMNANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 IS MINOR, AND IS BEING REP. BY HIS MOTHER, THE CLAIMNANT NO.1

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K GOSWAMI

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 12-06-2018

¶17

Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶18

This is an application for return of the lower Court records pertaining to MAC Case No. 1796/2015 to the learned MACT Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati.

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

The learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the learned Tribunal had passed the judgment dated 27.10.2016, it was revealed to the applicants that the judgment impugned in the connected appeal is vitiated by fraud, which had come to their knowledge subsequently in point of time.

¶21

In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the applicant has referred to the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 (2) CPC to project that the pendency of appeal before this Court was not a bar for the learned Tribunal to entertain the review application and in support of his submissions, he has relied on the cases of (i) Behari Lal and Anr. Vs. M.M. Gobrdhan Lal and Ors., AIR 1948 ALL 353 (FB) and (ii) Kapoor Chand and Ors. Vs. Ganesh Dutta and Ors. (1993) Supp. (4) SCC 432.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed this application on the ground that no provision of law has been quoted in this application and that the applicant has miserably failed to show cause as to why the grounds taken in the said review petition could not have been agitated in the present appeal. It is submitted that the applicant could agitate the grounds on which they have applied for review in the connected appeal. By referring to the submissions made in the connected review application, which is annexed to this application, it is submitted that the projected case of the applicant that there was mistake by learned counsel in making the entry of next date in the diary and therefore, the applicant could not be present that the hearing of the claim petition was taken up by the learned Tribunal and therefore, it is submitted that the review petition itself was not maintainable.

¶23

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the opposite parties, this Court is of the view that the learned senior counsel for the applicant has prime facie been able to show that the law permitted the applicant to file a review.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to make any observation on the merit of the respective cases of the parties and the learned Tribunal shall decide the matter without being influenced by any observations made herein. In order to facilitate the hearing of the review application before the learned Tribunal, it is provided that the Registry shall send a photocopy of the ‘A’ File containing order sheet, judgment, claim petition, issues, written statement, evidence and exihibited documents available at page 1 to 118 of the LCR to the Court of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned instructing counsel for the applicant that the next date fixed before the learned Tribunal is 19.06.2018. Therefore, an endeavour should be made to send the photocopy with LCR on or before 19.06.2018.

¶27

On receipt of the LCR, the learned Tribunal shall proceed for the admission hearing at its earliest.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Purabi Mahanta Goswami and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Purabi Mahanta Goswami and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bedanta Hazarika and Anr.

M/S Sree Durga Trading Company Vs Sankala Devi Thakur

M/S Sree Durga Trading Company Vs Sankala Devi Thakur

Pulin Sharma and 6 Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Amrit Tiwari Since Deceased His Legal Heirs - a Dhurwa Nandan Tiwari and 6 Ors. Vs Rukmini Devi Koiri and Anr.

Amrit Tiwari Since Deceased His Legal Heirs - a Dhurwa Nandan Tiwari and 6 Ors. Vs Rukmini Devi Koiri and Anr.