Gauhati High Court
CRP(IO)/449/2026 of SUNIL CH. SARKAR Vs THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND 2 ORS. on 15 September 2026
GAHC010200392026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/449/2026 SUNIL CH. SARKAR S/O LATE RAI MOHAN SARKAR, VILLAGE NO. 1, BORPATHER, P.O- TAPTALA, P.S- BHURAGAON, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010200392026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/449/2026
SUNIL CH. SARKAR
S/O LATE RAI MOHAN SARKAR, VILLAGE NO. 1, BORPATHER, P.O- TAPTALA, P.S- BHURAGAON, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND 2 ORS.
REGIONAL OFFICE, GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, P.O.- GUWAHATI- 781005, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
2:SAIDUL ISLAM
S/O SAHAR ALI
C/O AYUB RAHMAN
HOUSE NO- 90
HATIGAON
DORGAH ROAD
P.O AND P.S- HATIGAON
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM
PIN- 781038
3:MANOJ DEWRI
S/O B. DEWRI
VILLAGE- LOTHABARI
P.O.- PATUAKATA
P.S.- MIKIRBHETA
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA, MR ADITYA AGARWALA
Page No.# 2/2
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
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
Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. A R Agarwala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the MACT, Morigaon in MAC Case No.MAC(I)83/2020.
3. The petitioner is the claimant before the tribunal. On 06.01.2026, the Insurance Company being the Opposite Party No.1, was present. However, for failure to take steps upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition of the present petitioner.
4. On a plain reading of the order dated 06.01.2026, it may be stated that the said order is bad in law. The Opposite Party No.1 was present on that day. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the MACT, Morigaon in MAC Case No.MAC(I)83/2020 is set aside.
5. The tribunal is directed to provide one opportunity to the claimant to take steps for service of notice upon the remaining respondents except the respondent No.1. With the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant