Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS
Royal Sundaram G.I.C. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bharati Bhuyan Konwar W/o Late Raghi Konwar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual background and timeline of the delay in filing the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' arguments regarding whether 321 days constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. resolution of conflicting precedents concerning whether merits of a case can be considered during delay condonation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. requirement for realistic and bona fide explanation of delay, even for organizational litigants. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. application of legal principles to specific facts leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vikramjeet Devnath, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel and Mr. Laknyei Phom, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. The applicant/Insurance company is seeking to file an appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung in MAC case No. 40 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs. 23,5
Point of Law : LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Point of law: claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. T....
The court determined that internal miscommunication within the insurer does not justify a delay of over 300 days in filing an appeal, emphasizing statutory obligations to act with diligence.
The court held that mere excuses do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
The Court must balance the need for substantial justice against the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines, requiring satisfactory explanations for delays.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
