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 :
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.
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:-
5. That the Bhubaneswar Office after tracing the file from the bunch of disposed of files processed the file and after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the competent Authority forwarded it to the Zonal Office at Kolkata for according approval for filing appeal.
7. That the counsel after receipt of the file requested the office to hand over all the relevant documents and after receipt of the same drafted the memorandum of appeal and the appeal was accordingly filed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Dutta, however, submits that since there was a miscommunication fr
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.
Inordinate delays in filing appeals by statutory authorities cannot be condoned solely based on the merits of the case, and the reasons for delay must be sufficient and satisfactory.
The importance of explaining each day's delay in seeking condonation, the generation of vested rights by time-barred appeals, and the need to advance substantial justice.
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
