Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gulapi Disari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay application details (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against delay condonation (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on delay and negligence (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 213 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to condone the delay of 313 days in preferring the appeal.
3. In support of the claim for condonation of delay, the appellant-insurer has in fact taken the following averments in paragraph 4 of the limitation petition which reads as under:-
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Satapathy, however, submits that since there was a communication gap between the advocate and the Insurance Company, the delay has occasioned and thereby, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather is due to unavoidable cause and therefore, the delay in preferring the appeal may kindly be condoned, but Mr. R.K. Pati, learned counsel for R-7, however, submits that the delay can never be said to be not intentional, rather it is intentional and the appellant-Insurance Company is only to avoid its liability has preferred this appeal with a delay of 313 days and, theref
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.
Statutory agencies must act with diligence in timely filing appeals; negligence does not justify delay in condonation requests.
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....
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 law of limitation applies to all parties, and mere procedural delays are insufficient for condonation; adequate justification is required.
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.
Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause explaining each day's delay, substantiated by evidence; vague, unsubstantiated plea of family illness fails against rigorous limitation la....
Litigants must exercise due diligence in legal proceedings; mere negligence of counsel does not justify condoning delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
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
