Disposed¶27

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udit Kumar Borah and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2025I.A.(Civil)/3499/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 33 days' delay; Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Udit Kumar Borah, Bandita Bordoloi and Babu Hussain; MAC Case No. 23/2019; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon; judgment and award dated 20.06.2024; I.A.(Civil)/3499/2024; Gauhati High Court; order dated 17.03.2025; Justice Robin Phukan; connected appeal to be registered and listed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and list it before this Court as soon as practicable, with the name of Mr. M. Talukdar, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, reflected in the cause list. ¶27

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Udit Kumar Borah and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010222682024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3499/2024

¶6

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

¶7

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 570, RECTIFIER HOUSE, NAGAUM CROSS, NEXT TO ROYAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WADALA (W), MUMBAI 400031 AND ONE OF THE BRANCH OFFICE AT PRAG PLAZA, 5TH FLOOR G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, PIN-781005.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UDIT KUMAR BORAH AND 2 ORS S/O. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR, BORAH.

¶10

2:BANDITA BORDOLOI W/O. UDIT KUMAR BORAH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILL.- PAGHALI PANBARI P/S. MIKIBHETA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782001. (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 BEING REP. BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 HIS WIFE)

¶11

3:BABU HUSSAIN R/O. MORI MUSALMANGAON P/O. AND P/S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A J SAIKIA, MR. S. PEGU

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR (R-1,2),

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 17.03.2025

¶18

Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

¶19

Office note date 06.03.2025, indicates that service in respect of opposite party No. 3 has already been completed, but the opposite party No. 3 remains unrepresented today.

¶20

This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, in MAC Case No. 23/2019.

¶21

Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, could not be preferred within the stipulated period of time as certified copy of the said judgment and award could not be obtained in time and that the same has duly been explained in paragraph No. 4 of this application and as such, it is contended to condone the delay of 33 days.

¶22

Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the aforesaid delay.

¶23

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

record, and also perused the statements and averments made in paragraph No. 4 of this application.

¶26

It appears that the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, could not be obtained in time and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has duly been explained in paragraph No. 4 of this application and therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶27

In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.

¶28

Registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same before this Court as soon as practicable. The name of Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be reflected in the cause list.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udit Kumar Borah and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udit Kumar Borah and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Arisuddin Ahmed Vs the Board of Secondary Education, Assam and Anr.

M/s PetoDumpum Enterprise and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

M/s Him Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 9 Ors.

The Union of India Vs M/S Kooltech Systemassam

Md. Mahar Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sri Tajnur Hoque and Anr. Vs the State of Assam