Allowed

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Smti Kalpana Konwar and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2022I.A.(Civil)/1433/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered an application for condonation of a 92-day delay in filing a connected civil appeal arising from an industrial dispute. The applicant explained the delay due to filing a review application and internal official procedures.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 92 days in preferring the connected appeal was condoned and the interlocutory application was allowed and disposed of.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010118302020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1433/2020

¶5

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶6

REGD HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA 700071, REP. BY THE MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGARH, GHY781005

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SMTI KALPANA KONWAR AND 2 ORS W/O- LATE JOGESWAR KONWAR, R/O- SIMALUGURI GAON, P.ONAVAJYOTI, P.S- BORDUMSA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786152

¶9

2:GITANJALI KONWAR D/O- LATE JOGESWAR KONWAR R/O- SIMALUGURI GAON P.O- NAVAJYOTI P.S- BORDUMSA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786152

¶10

3:JAYANTA SONOWAL S/O- LATE KESHAB SONOWAL R/-O LAINA UDALGURI GAON P.O AND P.S- DOOMDOOMA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78615

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS R D MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MS. C PATOWARY

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 01.06.2022

¶16

Heard Ms. C. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant/ Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

¶17

None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 though the name of the learned counsel has been shown in the Cause List as appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

¶18

Office Note, dated 25.03.2022, indicates that notice on respondent No. 2 has been served.

¶19

This is an application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 92 days, in preferring the connected appeal which is directed against the judgment & award, dated 11.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Tinsukia, Assam, in MAC Case No. 28/2017.

¶20

The reason for the delay in not preferring the connected MAC. appeal within the stipulated time has been explained by the applicant in the accompanying application, stating that the delay of 92 days has occurred due to filing of a review application before the learned Tribunal, seeking the review of the impugned judgment & award, dated 11.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Tinsukia, Assam, in MAC Case No. 28/2017, and also on account of the official procedure that was required to be followed after a legal opinion was sought from the dealing Advocate which resulted in the delay of 92 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

Upon consideration of the explanation provided by the applicant/Insurance Company in the accompanying application, as highlighted hereinabove; I am satisfied that there was no laches and negligence on the part of the applicant/Insurance Company and the applicant/Insurance Company was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected MAC. appeal within the stipulated time period.

¶23

In view of the above, the delay of 92 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.

¶24

The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.

¶25

Registry shall list the connected appeal for admission hearing in due course by showing the names of Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel, and his associates as well as the names of Ms. C. Patowary, learned counsel, and her associates, as appearing on behalf of their respective respondents in the Cause List.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Smti Kalpana Konwar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Smti Kalpana Konwar and 2 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

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Musstt. Rahena Begum and 7 Ors.

Sri Dadu Bora @ Sri Manoranjan Bora (Injured ) Vs Sri Madhab Bora and 2 Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kamalesh Ganguly and 2 Ors.

Mustt Sarvan Bewa Vs General Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chitralekha Biswasi and 4 Ors.

1. Smti Parbati Devi and and 5 Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited