Allowed¶28

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ribi Dutta and 2 Ors.

Condonation of delay – Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2026I.A.(Civil)/2326/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, I.A.(Civil)/2326/2024, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd v. Ribi Dutta & Ors., order dated 17.06.2026 by Justice Kaushik Goswami; condonation of 62-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 against judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 in G.E.C. Case No. 06/2019 (Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Sonitpur); delay condoned; application allowed; appeal to be registered and numbered.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923; interlocutory application allowed; appeal directed to be registered and numbered. ¶28

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ribi Dutta and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010155162024

2026:GAU-AS:8691

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2326/2024

¶6

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE 2ND FLOOR, NO. 2 N.S.C BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600001, AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZE, 4TH FLOOR, OPP. TO S.B DEORAH COLLEGE, GS ROAD, GUWAHATI

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RIBI DUTTA AND 2 ORS W/O SRI KRISHNA KUMAR DUTTA, RESIDENT OF KAMARCHUBURI, TEZPUR, PO AND PS TEZPUR, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM 784001

¶9

2:MD. JABED HUSSAIN S/O JAKIR HUSSAIN

¶10

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BETONIJHAR PO HOLLESWAR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM 78410

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S SAHU (R-2), MR N BARUAH(R-1),I KUMARI (R-1)

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 17.06.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.

¶18

2. It appears that the name of respondent No. 3 was struck off by this Court’s order dated 10.06.2026 upon recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

3. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 62 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, as amended, against the judgment and order dated 20/02/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Sonitpur in G.E.C. Case No. 06/2019.

¶20

4. The grounds of delay are explained as under: -

¶21

“ 2. That as the Judgment and Order was passed on 20.02.2024 the last date for filing the appeal is 21.04.2024, But since appeal has been filed on 24.06.2024 there is a delay of 62 (sixty two) days in filing this appeal. It is stated that the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2024 was sent by the dealing Advocate at Sonitpur to the Guwahati Office of the Appellant on 18.03.2024. After due processing the file was sent BY THE Guwahati Office to the next higher office i.e the Zonal Office at Kolkata on 27.03.2024. The Zonal Office after satisfying that there are good grounds for filing an appeal forwarded the file to the Head Office at Chennai on 10.04.2024 for their approval. The Head Office in order to be sure of the merit of the recommendation for filing an appeal asked for some clarifications from the Guwahati

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Office on 15.05.2024. After receipt of the same the Head Office advised the Guwahati Office on 20.05.2024 to file an appeal. Thereafter the Guwahati Office engaged the Counsel on 24.05.2024. The Counsel asked for supporting documents on 03.06.2024 which were provided on 12.06.2024. By that time the appeal was filed on 24.06.2024 a delay of 62 (Sixty two) occurred in filing the appeal which was unintentional and for sufficient cause.”

¶24

5. Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, submits that although an objection had initially been filed on behalf of the said respondent, he does not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay and fairly submits that the appeal may be heard on merits. Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, submits that he has no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶25

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the application, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained and that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

¶26

7. Accordingly, the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶27

8. The interlocutory application is allowed.

¶28

9. Let the appeal be registered and numbered.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ribi Dutta and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ribi Dutta 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

Candid Drug Distributors and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Jayanti Das Vs the Union of India

Kuhinur Khatun and 3 Ors. Vs the Regional Manager and 4 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banikanta Das and Anr.

Bakul Das and 2 Ors. Vs Sadhan Das and 5 Ors.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Babita Devi and Anr.