Allowed

The Orental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Babar Ali and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 May 2019I.A.(Civil)/2105/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considereddelay in filing an appeal and service of notice. It held that the applicant adequately explained the delay and condoned it. The name of respondent No. 3 was struck off due to ineffective service.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 92 days' delay in filing the connected appeal allowed; respondent No. 3 struck off the respondents array.

The Orental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Babar Ali and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010027642017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 2105/2017

¶5

1:THE ORENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶6

A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSTT. MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:MD. BABAR ALI and 2 ORS,

¶9

S/O LATE NOSER ALI, VILL. PAHASING PARA, P.O. DUBAPARA, P.S. MOMOI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783101

¶10

2:HEMANYGO BAISHYA S/O UMESH CH. BAISHYA BERIA PATH HOUSE NO. 20 TANALIPUR P.O. KAHILIPARA DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN 781019

¶11

3:DEBA KANTA DEKA S/O LATE G.K. DEKA P.K. MOTOR WORKS 5-B ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN 78100

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S P SHARMA

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.F AHMEDR-1

¶15

Linked Case : /

¶16

1:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

1:MD BABAR ALI and 2 ORS

¶19

2:MD KAMRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA

¶20

3:MD ANOWARUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA

¶21

4:MD AFZAL HAQUE BARBHUIYA

¶22

5:... ALL ARE SONS OF LT. LOKMAN ALI BARBHUIYA R/O VILL- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II PH. BARAKPAR DIST. CACHAR.

¶23

6:MUSTT. NURUN NESSA CHOUDHURY W/O SAMAR UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O VILL- KANAKPUR PART-I PH. BARAKPAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM.

¶24

7:MUSTT. FAIJUN NESSA W/O MD ALAUDDIN LASKAR OF VILL- SAYEDPUR PH. SONAPUR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM. 8:MUSTT. SULEMA BEGUM W/O LT. KALMUL HAQUE BARBHUIYA

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

9:MUSTT. ATABUN NESSA W/O LT. LUKMAN ALL BARBHUIYA OF VILL- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II PH. BARAKPAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM.

¶27

10:MD SARIF UDDIN BARBHUIYA

¶28

11:MD BAHAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA

¶29

12:MD RAHIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA

¶30

13:MD ISLAM UDDIN BARBHUIYA ALL R/O VILL- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PT-II PH. BARAKPAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM.

¶31

14:MUSSTT. RUBI BEGUM W/O LT. MISBA UDDIN BARBHUIYA

15:HASEN AHMED

16:ANSAR AHMED

17:IMRAN AHMED

18:MUSTT. SUNI BEGUM ALL ARE SONS AND D/O LT. MISBA UDDIN BARBHUIYA MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER REP. NO.13 MUSTT. RUBI BEGUM AS GUARDIAN and NEXT FILEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SUIT OF VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PT-II PH. BARAKPAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM.

¶36

19:MUSTT. SAMSUN NAHAR D/O LT. ABDUL BARI BARBHUIYA W/O FOIJUR RAHMAN OF VILL- BAGHADOHAR DIST. CACHAR.

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R D MOZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent :

¶39

BEFORE

¶40

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶41

14.05.2019

¶42

Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T. Islam, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶43

As per office note dated 08.08.2018 there is a process server report that notice has been served upon the respondent No. 2. In so far as respondent notice No. 3 is concerned, Office note dated 10.05.2019 indicates that notice sent has returned with process server’s report as “not found”.

¶44

Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel submits that since challenge made by the insurance company is mainly on the quantum, the respondent No. 3 be struck off from the arrayed respondents.

¶45

In view of above, the name of respondent No. 3 is struck off from the respondents arrayed in the application. Notice upon the respondent No. 2 is complete.

¶46

Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel submits that the applicant by filing this application seeks condonation of 92 days in filing the connected appeal. She submits that although the judgment was passed by the Tribunal on 26.09.2016 but a copy of the judgment was furnished to the Insurance Company by their learned counsel after 109 days. Thereafter a certified copy of the judgment was

¶47

Page No.# 5/5

¶48

applied for on 06.01.2017, which was then furnished to the applicant only on 16.03.2017, after 175 days of passing the judgment. Consequently, in the process, the delay of 92 days have occurred. To substantiate her submissions the learned counsel refers to paragraph No. 4. Mr. T. Islam, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that he has no objection if the delay is condoned.

¶49

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the application, I am of the considered view that the applicant is able to explain the delay in filing the appeal satisfactory. As such, the delay of 92 days stands condoned.

¶50

The I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Comparing Assistant

The Orental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Babar Ali and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Orental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Babar Ali and 2 Ors.

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

Pramila Bala Roy Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Miss Monowara Begum and 4 Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Ranju Devi and 4 Ors.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Akbar Ali and 5 Ors.

Tapan Kr. Kalita, Vs Diganta Kalita and Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Puspa Bhuyan and 2 Ors.