Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/443/2020 of SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS on 15 September 2026
GAHC010191612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/443/2020 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1000-E/8 RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITPUR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN- 302022 AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT B.R. ARCADE 3RD
GAHC010191612026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/443/2020
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
1000-E/8
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITPUR
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN- 302022 AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT B.R. ARCADE
3RD FLOOR
21 JANAPATH
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007 IS REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.
VERSUS
SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS
S/O LATE PRANKRISHNA DAS
R/O VILL PANIGAON
DIMARUGURI
P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782001
2:MRS SHILPI DAS
W/O JITEN DAS
R/O VILL PANIGAON
DIMARUGURI
P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782001
3:RAJIB SINGH
S/O LT. RAMESH SINGH
R//O VILL. NEPALLIPATTI
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN 784001
. OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-09-C-6843 TRUCK.
4:SRI SUBUDH DAS
S/O LT. H.DAS
R//O VILL.DULABARI
NO.2
P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN 784001
. DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-09-C-6843 TRUCK.
------------
Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI
Advocate for : appearing for SRI JITEN DAS AND 3 ORS
In
MACApp. Case No.
477/2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
16.09.2026 [1] Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. [2] It appears that though this application was filed for condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal by the applicant/insurance company, however, after 08.05.2024, no order has been passed in this interlocutory application. [3] It appears that in the meanwhile, the connected MACAppeal has already been registered by the Registry, i.e. perhaps done on the strength of order dated 08.05.2024, passed in I.A.(Civil) Case No. 80/2020, which was in connection with the appeal No. I.A.(Civil) Case No. 477/2025. In the other appeal, it appears that due to oversight no order was passed in this interlocutory application. Since the prayer for condonation of delay has not been opposed to by any of the opposite parties and since the allowing of this interlocutory application merely remains upon a formality. [4] Hence, this interlocutory application after considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application is allowed and delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned. [5] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant