The High Court at Cuttack dealt with a writ appeal subject to uncondoned delay. The court found the explanation for the 148-day delay unconvincing and dismissed the miscellaneous application and the appeal.
Misc. Case No. 992 of 2011 is dismissed; consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
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. 622 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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long delay of 148 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned.
Whether the explanation of scattered papers is convincing in justifying the delay.
New Assurance Apparatus Co. Ltd.
Dinesh Chandra Mishra
R. K. Pattanaik
S. Muralidhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
