Allowed¶31

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

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2026MC/1299/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 22 days delay; appeal against workmen's compensation award; W.C. Case No. 26/2013; Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta; award dated 12.08.2014; National Insurance Co. Ltd.; bona fide explanation; internal administrative hierarchy; panel advocates' opinions; Divisional Office; Regional Office; Barpeta Road Branch Office; certified copy 13.08.2014; sufficient cause; Gauhati High Court; MC/1299/2015; Justice Kaushik Goswami; order dated 17.06.2026; Registry to register connected appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 22 days in filing the connected appeal condoned; application allowed and disposed of; Registry directed to register and number the connected appeal, if otherwise in order. ¶31

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banikanta Das and Anr. — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 22 days in filing the connected appeal condoned; application allowed and disposed of; Registry directed to register and number the connected appeal, if otherwise in order.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause has been shown for condoning, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay of 22 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 12.08.2014 passed in W.C. Case No. 26/2013.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The delay occurred primarily because of the time consumed in processing the matter through the various administrative levels of the applicant-company and in obtaining the requisite legal opinions; the explanation offered is bona fide and discloses no deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant.

¶28

Key takeaways

Being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, the Court condoned the delay of 22 days in filing the connected appeal.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kaushik Goswami, J.), Misc. Case No. MC/1299/2015, order dated 17.06.2026: Application by National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a 22-day delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and award dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta in W.C. Case No. 26/2013 was allowed. The delay was explained by receipt of the certified copy at the Barpeta Road Branch Office on 13.08.2014 and subsequent processing through the insurer's internal administrative hierarchy — opinions of panel advocates and successive examination at the Divisional Office and Regional Office — before entrustment to the conducting counsel. Holding the explanation bona fide and free of deliberate inaction or negligence, and satisfied that sufficient cause was shown, the Court condoned the 22-day delay, allowed and disposed of the application, and directed the Registry to register and number the connected appeal if otherwise in order. Neither respondent appeared despite completed service (Office notes dated 28.05.2015 and 21.05.2026).

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010199452015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MC/1299/2015

¶5

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶6

A CO. REGISTERED AND INCORPATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KALKATA AND ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

BANIKANTA DAS and ANR

¶9

S/O LATE BHADRESWAR DAS, VILL and P.S. SORBHOG, DIST BARPETA, PRESENT ADDRESS VILL BHAWANIPUR, P.S. BARPETA, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM

¶10

2:KRISHNA KANTA DAS

¶11

S/O SRI GIRINDRA NATH DAS VILL. KEOTKUCHI P.S. BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S ROY, MR.R C PAUL

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 17.06.2026

¶18

Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondents on call.

¶19

It appears that services in respect of the respondents are complete.

¶20

It appears from the Office note dated 28.05.2015 that service in respect of respondent No. 2 stands completed; however, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 2, when the matter is called.

¶21

Further, the Office note dated 21.05.2026 similarly records service upon the respondent No. 1 stands completed; however, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 1 either.

¶22

The application is accordingly taken for final disposal.

¶23

By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 22 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta in W.C. Case No. 26/2013.

¶24

The delay has been explained in paragraphs 2 to 7 of the application. It is stated that upon receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and award by the Barpeta Road Branch Office on

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

13.08.2014, the matter was processed through the different levels of the applicant-insurance company in accordance with its internal administrative hierarchy. Opinions were obtained from the concerned panel advocates, and the file was successively examined at the Divisional Office as well as the Regional Office before a final decision was taken to challenge the award. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to the conducting counsel for preparation and filing of the appeal.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the materials available on record.

¶28

From the explanation furnished, it appears that the delay has occurred primarily on account of the time consumed in processing the matter through the various administrative levels of the applicantcompany and in obtaining the requisite legal opinions before a decision could be taken to institute the appeal. The explanation offered appears to be bona fide and does not disclose any deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 22 days.

¶30

Accordingly, the delay of 22 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned.

¶31

The application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.

¶32

Registry shall register and number the connected appeal, if

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

otherwise in order.

¶35

JUDGE