Allowed

Kalpana Ray Karmakar and Anr. v. Tilak Das and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Aug 2022I.A.(Civil)/962/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an interim application seeking condonation of a 28-day delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment. After hearing counsel, the Court held that the explanation for the delay lacks mala fides and sufficient grounds merited the delay be condoned under established Supreme Court precedent before remanding the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 28 days delay in filing MAC appeal; appeal directed to be listed after two weeks.

Kalpana Ray Karmakar and Anr. Vs Tilak Das… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010061142020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/962/2020

¶5

KALPANA RAY KARMAKAR AND ANR

¶6

W/O- SHRI NEPAL RAY KARMAKAR, R/O- VILL.- KHAIRABARI, KAMARPOTTI, P.S. BARPETA ROAD, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315.

¶7

2: NEPAL RAY KARMAKAR S/O- LATE DAGURAM KARMAKAR R/O- VILL.- KHAIRABARI KAMARPOTTI P.S. BARPETA ROAD DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781315

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

TILAK DAS AND 2 ORS.

¶10

S/O- LATE PITAMBAR DAS, R/O- VILL.- SORBHOG TOWN, WARD NO. 4, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317.

¶11

2:BAREK ALI S/O- LATE MATIUR RAHMAN R/O- VILL.- SARUHARIT P.S. SORBHOG DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781317.

¶12

3:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE 25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110002 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT SEVERAL PLACES INCLUDING THE CONCERNED BRANCH BEING BARPETA ROAD BRANCH BARPETA ROAD

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K JAIN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 08-08-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶21

Office note dated 02.08.2020 reflects that service on respondent No. 1 has been received by his wife. Notice on respondent No. 2 has been received by the Aunt of respondent No. 2 along with the process server’s report to that effect. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are driver and owner respectively. Service on respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is considered to be complete.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Order 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 147/2019.

¶23

Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent does not object to the condonation of the delay. Although the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been served none had appeared when the matter is taken up today.

¶24

Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings, it is seen that the delay has been sufficiently explained.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

The explanation put forth for the delay that has occurred does not reveal any mala fides nor can it be seen as a dilatory strategy. On the grounds urged in the I.A., this Court finds that the delay which had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned. Relying upon the principle laid down in N. Balakrishnan –Vs- M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 28 days is accordingly condoned.

¶27

The I.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶28

Registry is directed to number the MAC appeal and list it before the Court after 2(two) weeks.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Kalpana Ray Karmakar and Anr. v. Tilak Das and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Ray Karmakar and Anr. v. Tilak Das and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debendra Narayan Deka Vs Monalisa Goswami and 3 Ors.

The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Deptt. Vs Sanjay Kumar Das and 4 Ors.

Smti. Suparna Sinha Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Hareshwar Roy Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sashadhar Patowary Vs the Honble Chairman, Apdcl, Aegcl, Apgcl and 3 Ors.

Md. Mozibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.