Allowed

The Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory v. Subhadra Choudhary and Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Feb 2018C.M.P./16/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored a miscellaneous appeal to its original file. The petitioner explained a clerical error causing non-compliance with a service of notice order. The court accepted the explanation as sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

C.M.P. No. 16 of 2018 allowed; M.A. No. 262 of 2012 restored to original file.

What the court decided

The Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianze… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 16 of 2018

¶2

The Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited

¶3

………..Petitioner

¶4

Versus Subhadra Choudhary and Others ………. Opp. Parties --------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.J. Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : -----------

¶5

02/Dated:16.02.2018

¶6

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of M.A.no.262 of 2012 which was dismissed non-compliance of the order dated 07.12.2017.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted vide order dated 07.12.2017 in M.A. no. 262 of 2012 a direction was given upon the appellants to file requisites of notice to be served upon respondents, i.e., respondent nos. 1 to 8. That in compliance of the order dated 07.12.2017 passed in M.A. no. 262 of 2012, notices were filed as against respondent nos. 1 to 6, but inadvertently, due to misunderstanding of the Advocate clerk notices could not be filed as against respondent nos. 7 & 8. That due to advocate clerk’s mistake the order could not be complied resulting in dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal. It is urged that there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner. It is urged that if M.A. no. 262 of 2012, is not restored to its original file, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury as the petitioner has a good case.

¶8

Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, there is reasonable explanation and sufficient cause made out, accordingly, the C.M.P. no. 16 of 2018, stands allowed and M.A. no. 262 of 2012 is restored to its original file.

¶9

M.A. no. 262 of 2012

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant shall take fresh steps for filing requisite of notice to be served upon respondent nos. 7 and 8, under ordinary process within two weeks, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Bench.

¶11

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶12

Tarun/-

The Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory v. Subhadra Choudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory v. Subhadra Choudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Devi Vs Suman Samanta

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Pratik Choudhury Vs Babita Devi And Ors.

Kunal Kishore Singh Alias Kunal Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dulari Devi and Ors. Vs Bageshwari Sao

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Alias Kamdeo Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ashiya Parveen Alias Sahin Vs Md Siddique Khan