SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Gau) 81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
NANI TAGIA, J.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ABDUR RASHID MONDAL AND ORS - Respondent
Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 1364 of 2018
Decided on : 07-02-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
R.D. Mozumdar, Adv., M. Dutta, Adv.

The court has the discretion to condone the delay in filing an appeal under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 if sufficient cause is shown.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Condonation of Delay - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 295 days in filing the connected appeal against a judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The court, after perusing the explanation provided in the application and hearing the counsels for the parties, found that the application was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. The delay of 295 days in preferring the connected appeal was thereby condoned.

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the connected appeal under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the explanation provided in the application and the submissions of the counsels for the parties to determine whether the delay in filing the connected appeal should be condoned.

Final Decision: The delay of 295 days in preferring the connected appeal was hereby condoned, and the application stood disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

NANI TAGIA, J.

1. Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. J. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Ms. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. Service of notice upon respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 8 have been duly served but none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. Ms. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of respondent Nos. 5 and 7 be struck off from the list of respondents as they are not a necessary parties.

4. In view of the submissions, let the name of respondent Nos. 5 and 7 be deleted from the list of respondents.

5. This is an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 295 days in filing the connected appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 1, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 201/2012.

6. I have perused the explanation provided in paragraphs 3 to 9 of the accompanying application. I have also heard Ms. J. Talukar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 as well as Ms. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 who submits that they have no objection if the delay of 295 days in not preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned.

7. On perusal of the explanation provided in the accompanying application as well as having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the application was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. 8. In view thereof, the delay of 295 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. stands disposed of.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top