Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/2326/2024 of CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs RIBI DUTTA AND 2 ORS on 16 June 2026
GAHC010155162024 2026:GAU-AS:8691 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2326/2024 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE 2ND FLOOR, NO. 2 N.S.C BOSE ROAD,
GAHC010155162024
2026:GAU-AS:8691
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2326/2024
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE
2ND FLOOR, NO. 2 N.S.C BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600001, AND ITS BRANCH
OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZE, 4TH FLOOR, OPP. TO S.B DEORAH COLLEGE, GS ROAD, GUWAHATI
VERSUS
RIBI DUTTA AND 2 ORS
W/O SRI KRISHNA KUMAR DUTTA,
RESIDENT OF KAMARCHUBURI, TEZPUR, PO AND PS TEZPUR, DIST
SONITPUR, ASSAM 784001
2:MD. JABED HUSSAIN
S/O JAKIR HUSSAIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BETONIJHAR
PO HOLLESWAR
DIST SONITPUR
ASSAM 78410
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S SAHU (R-2), MR N BARUAH(R-1),I KUMARI (R-1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
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 : 17.06.2026
Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.
2. It appears that the name of respondent No. 3 was struck off by this Court’s order dated 10.06.2026 upon recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant.
3. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 62 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, as amended, against the judgment and order dated 20/02/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Sonitpur in G.E.C. Case No. 06/2019.
4. The grounds of delay are explained as under: - “2. That as the Judgment and Order was passed on 20.02.2024 the last date for filing the appeal is 21.04.2024, But since appeal has been filed on 24.06.2024 there is a delay of 62 (sixty two) days in filing this appeal. It is stated that the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2024 was sent by the dealing Advocate at Sonitpur to the Guwahati Office of the Appellant on 18.03.2024. After due processing the file was sent BY THE Guwahati Office to the next higher office i.e the Zonal Office at Kolkata on 27.03.2024. The Zonal Office after satisfying that there are good grounds for filing an appeal forwarded the file to the Head Office at Chennai on 10.04.2024 for their approval. The Head Office in order to be sure of the merit of the recommendation for filing an appeal asked for some clarifications from the Guwahati
Office on 15.05.2024. After receipt of the same the Head Office advised the Guwahati Office on 20.05.2024 to file an appeal. Thereafter the Guwahati Office engaged the Counsel on 24.05.2024. The Counsel asked for supporting documents on 03.06.2024 which were provided on 12.06.2024. By that time the appeal was filed on 24.06.2024 a delay of 62 (Sixty two) occurred in filing the appeal which was unintentional and for sufficient cause.”
5. Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, submits that although an objection had initially been filed on behalf of the said respondent, he does not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay and fairly submits that the appeal may be heard on merits. Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, submits that he has no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the application, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained and that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
7. Accordingly, the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
8. The interlocutory application is allowed.
9. Let the appeal be registered and numbered.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant