Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanna Logun

Gauhati HC8 Apr 2019I.A.(Civil)/120/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application for condonation of delay, the Gauhati High Court examined the reasons for a 77-day delay in appealing a lower tribunal's decision. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation regarding internal processing and route transmission, holding that ends of justice would be served by condoning the delay to allow a hearing on merits. The application was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 77 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned; the I.A. is disposed of.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hanna Logun — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010011292018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 120/2018

¶5

1:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶6

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:HANNA LOGUN

¶9

R/O VILL. NO. 1, PODUMONI GAON, SARUPATHAR, P.O. SARUPATHAR, P.S. SARUPATHAR

¶10

2:PRANJAL KACHOP

¶11

R/O NAGABAT CHRISTAN GAON P.O. BORHULLA P.S. KHETR

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : S KHANIKAR

¶14

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil) 311/2018

¶15

1:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI AND IITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S.ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

1:HANNA LOGUN W/O- LT PRADIP KR LOGUN R/O- VILL- NO 1 PODUMONI GAON SARUPATHAR P.O. SARUPATHAR P.S. SARUPATHAR DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785601

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent :

¶20

Linked Case : MACApp. 23/2018

¶21

1:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI.

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

1:HANNA LOGUN R/O VILL. NO. 1 PODUMONI GAON SARUPATHAR P.O. SARUPATHAR P.S. SARUPATHAR

¶24

2:PRANJAL KACHOP R/O NAGABAT CHRISTAN GAON P.O. BORHULLA P.S. KHETRI

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : S KHANIKAR

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

BEFORE

¶28

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶29

08.04.2019

¶30

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant who submits that the applicant by filing this application has sought for condonation of 77 days delay in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned Member MACT, Golaghat, in MAC Case No. 83/2013.

¶31

Learned counsel by referring to paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the application as well as the additional affidavit filed on 06.02.2019 submits that the delay in fling the appeal is only on account of the process required to be under-taken right from obtaining legal opinion up to getting the sanction of the competent authority in Chennai. The learned counsel submits that there are no laches on the part of the applicant and the delay may be condoned.

¶32

Although a copy of the objection filed by the respondent No. 1 is not found in the record, Ms. S. Khanikar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has produced a copy of the same. Referring to the objection, she submits that the applicant has failed to explain the delay convincingly and satisfactorily. Referring further to paragraph No. 4 of the objection, she submits that although the dealing advocate handed over a certified copy of the judgment dated 13.03.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal to the applicant, the applicant sought for clarification from the dealing advocate only after 18 days of receiving the said judgment which shows the laches on the part of the applicant. Further, even after receiving the opinion of the panel advocate to file an appeal, 30 days time was still taken to file an appeal. As such, the delay may not be condoned.

¶33

On a perusal application for condonation of delay, particularly paragraph No. 2, it is seen that the manner in which the case was processed for filing the appeal right from receiving the judgment from the dealing advocate from Golaghat and thereafter, sending the same to the Regional Office at Guwahati including the Divisional Office at Jorhat and finally the Head Office at Chennai only appears to

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

have contributed to the delay.

¶36

Considering the explanations tendered, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be served if a liberal view is taken and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned so that the appeal can be heard on merit.

¶37

As such, the delay of 77 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned.

¶38

The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanna Logun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanna Logun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fatima Begum Vs Prativa Talukdar and 7 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Debajit Teron and Anr.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Mamta Das and 4 Ors.

Ujjala Nag Vs Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suren Ch. Ray and 2 Ors.

Bhubon Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.