Allowed

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Jiten Das and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of a 43-day delay in filing a connected appeal. The court permitted the filing based on stated grounds after confirming no opposition was raised.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal and dismissal of the interlocutory application.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Jiten Das and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010191612026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/443/2020

¶6

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1000-E/8 RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITPUR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN- 302022 AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT B.R. ARCADE 3RD FLOOR 21 JANAPATH ULUBARI

¶7

GUWAHATI-781007 IS REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS S/O LATE PRANKRISHNA DAS R/O VILL PANIGAON DIMARUGURI P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001

¶10

2:MRS SHILPI DAS W/O JITEN DAS R/O VILL PANIGAON DIMARUGURI P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001

¶11

3:RAJIB SINGH S/O LT. RAMESH SINGH R//O VILL. NEPALLIPATTI

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 . OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-09-C-6843 TRUCK. 4:SRI SUBUDH DAS S/O LT. H.DAS R//O VILL.DULABARI NO.2 P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 . DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-09-C-6843 TRUCK. -----------Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : appearing for SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS

¶14

In MACApp. Case No. 477/2025

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

16.09.2026

¶18

[1] Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

¶19

[2] It appears that though this application was filed for condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal by the applicant/insurance company, however, after 08.05.2024, no order has been passed in this interlocutory application.

¶20

[3] It appears that in the meanwhile, the

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

connected MACAppeal has already been registered by the Registry, i.e. perhaps done on the strength of order dated 08.05.2024, passed in I.A.(Civil) Case No. 80/2020, which was in connection with the appeal No. I.A.(Civil) Case No. 477/2025. In the other appeal, it appears that due to oversight no order was passed in this interlocutory application. Since the prayer for condonation of delay has not been opposed to by any of the opposite parties and since the allowing of this interlocutory application merely remains upon a formality.

¶23

[4] Hence, this interlocutory application after considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application is allowed and delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned.

¶24

[5] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Jiten Das and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Jiten Das and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases