Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Area Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sushama Sahu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of appeal delay due to circumstances. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on intention behind delay claim. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning against condoning delay. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. final decision on appeal dismissal. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
G. SATAPATHY, J.
1. The present Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 736 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to condone the delay of 1147 days in preferring the appeal.
2. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to 4 in the matter and perused the record, but none appears for R-5 despite valid service of notice of the appeal.
3. In support of the condonation of the delay, the appellant-insurer has taken the following averments in paragraph 4 to 8 of the petition which reads as under:-
“4. That it is submitted by this petitioner that after judgment was passed the dealing counsel submitted his opinion in the meantime the concerned Officer of the company left from company therefore the file was misplaced and could not traced out.
5. That the Bhubaneswar Office after tracing the file from the bunch of disposed of fi
Statutory agencies must act with diligence in timely filing appeals; negligence does not justify delay in condonation requests.
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 law of limitation applies to all parties, and mere procedural delays are insufficient for condonation; adequate justification is required.
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 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 : 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. ....
Delay has been caused only due to the acts of omission committed by the appellant. The applicant/appellant is not a rustic litigant, but an Insurance Company.
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
