Dismissed

MD Jahur Ali v. M/S Prerona Transport and Carrying Co. P Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2022I.A./446/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed an application for condoning a 608-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, finding no sufficient cause for the lapse. The court held that unexplained delay does not justify condonation.

What did the court decide?

Application praying for condonation of delay in filing appeal dismissed.

MD Jahur Ali Vs M/S Prerona Transport and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010007992016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A./446/2016

¶5

MD JAHUR ALI S/O LATE KERAMAT ULLAH, VILL.JAGIROAD RAM MANDIR, P.S.JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/S PRERONA TRANSPORT and CARRYING CO. P LTD. and 3 ORS, 27 KALAPAHAR HILL SIDE, BINOVA NAGAR, GUWAHATI -18, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, OWNER OF VOLVO BUS

¶8

2:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 INSURER OF VOLVO BUS

¶9

3:MUST . FARIDA KHATUN

¶10

W/O MD. JAHUR ALI VILL. SAGUNBAHI P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN CODE 782105 OWNER OF AUTOR VAN

¶11

4:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 INSURER OF AUTO VA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M TALUKDAR

¶13

Page No.# 2/2

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S K GOSWAMIR-2

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 02.03.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.K. Goswami and Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay 608 days in filing the appeal.

¶20

The judgment and award was passed by the tribunal on 30.09.2013. After about two years, on 14.07.2016 the petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment. It was obtained on 31.08.2015. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 16.02.2014.

¶21

The petitioner has stated that the delay was not intentional but no reason has been given as to why the delay took place.

¶22

The foundation for a prayer under Section 5 of the limitation Act 1963 is based on only one key and it is “sufficient cause”. The petitioner herein has not shown any cause for delay. Therefore, the delay does not deserve to be condoned.

¶23

The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

MD Jahur Ali v. M/S Prerona Transport and Carrying Co. P Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Jahur Ali v. M/S Prerona Transport and Carrying Co. P Ltd. and 3 Ors.

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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri. Mariam Ekka and Anr.

Anupjyoti Mahanta Vs Sangita Das (Mahanta)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dipak Koch and 2 Ors.

Punakan @ Phukon Boro Vs Afiya Khatoon and 2 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamana Bala Das and 4 Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gulzar Hussain and 8 Ors.