Allowed

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Selipi Sangtam and Anr.

Gauhati HC13 Nov 2019I.A.(Civil)/71/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of 65 days delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment. The court allowed the application, noting sufficient cause was shown.

What did the court decide?

The period of delay of 65 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned.

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Selipi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC020002582019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 71/2019

¶5

1:SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶6

REPRESENTED BY SHRI. SUBHADEEP BANERJEE, AREA CLAIMS MANAGER, MACT AND LITIGATION,SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. APEEJA HOUSE,4TH FLOOR, BLOCK B,15 PARK STREET, KOLKATA

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SELIPI SANGTAM AND ANR

¶9

S/O SETSIPA SANGTAM, H/NO.51, NEAR CIVIL HOSPITAL KIPHIRE, KIPHIRE TOWN, KIPHIRE, N/L. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT POLICE COLONY, DIMAPUR, N/L

¶10

2:C. YANTHAN MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA SECRETARIAT BRANCH KOHIMA N/

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : B. N. SARMAH

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : N K LUIKHAM

¶13

Linked Case : MACApp. 6/2019

¶14

1:SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY SHRI. SUBHADEEP BANERJEE AREA CLAIMS MANAGER MACT AND LITIGATION SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. APEEJA HOUSE 4TH FLOOR

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BLOCK B 15 PARK STREET KOLKATA VERSUS 1:SELIPI SANGTAM AND ANR S/O SETSIPA SANGTAM H/NO.51 NEAR CIVIL HOSPITAL KIPHIRE KIPHIRE TOWN KIPHIRE N/L. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT POLICE COLONY DIMAPUR N/L 2:C. YANTHAN MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA SECRETARIAT BRANCH KOHIMA N/L Advocate for the Petitioner : B. N. SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : N K LUIKHAM

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 13-11-2019

¶21

Heard Mr. Imtiwapang, learned counsel for the applicant and

¶22

Mr. C. D. Rungsung, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶23

Office note dated 27.09.2019 indicates that the AD in re-

¶24

spect of respondent No. 2 has already been returned after service. As such, the service of notice on respondent No. 2 is complete.

¶25

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 65 days that had occurred in preferring the connected appeal, MAC Appeal No. 6/2019 against

¶26

Page No.# 3/3 the judgment and award dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 78/2014.

¶27

Mr. C. D. Rungsung, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has prayed for 3 (three) weeks’ time to file objection to the prayer for condonation of delay of 65 days. However, it appears from record that the respondent No. 1 has entered appearance in the case on 13.08.2019 and more than 3 (three) months have elapsed since then, but on no earlier occasion when the matter was listed any prayer for filing objection to the prayer for condonation of delay was made. In view of the same, I am not inclined to grant any further time to respondent No. 1 and the said prayer is declined.

¶28

I have perused the statements made in the application for condonation of delay, more particularly, in paragraph 3 of the application. Upon perusal of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has explained the delay of 65 days by showing sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal. Accordingly, the period of delay of 65 days that has occurred in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned.

¶29

This IA, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶30

Sd/- JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Selipi Sangtam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Selipi Sangtam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reshenaro Vs L. Kire,Ifs and Anr.

Temsuwabang Longchar Vs the State of Nagaland

Lipongla Vs the State of Nagaland

Temsuinla Vs the State of Nagaland

Limatoshi Vs the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Asangla Aier and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.