The High Court rejected the appellant's explanation for a 148-day delay in filing a writ appeal as unconvincing, refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the associated miscellaneous case and the main appeal.
Misc. Case No.989 of 2011 and W.A. No. 621 of 2011 were dismissed due to inordinate delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 621 of 2011
…. The Management of New Assurance Appellant Co. Ltd.
Mr. D.K. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Dinesh Chandra Mishra …. Respondent Mr. V. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No.
09.05.2022
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S. Behera
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should condone the inordinate delay of 148 days in filing the writ appeal given the explanation that papers were scattered.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management of New Assurance Appellant Co. Ltd.
Dinesh Chandra Mishra
R. K. Pattanaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
