Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/41/2026 of NAGALAND HANDLOOM HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (NHHDCL) Vs SHRI K. HUKUTO SUMI AND 2 ORS on 2 June 2026
GAHC020001612026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/41/2026 NAGALAND HANDLOOM HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (NHHDCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUDA VILLAGE (HALF NAGARJAN), DIMAPUR.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC020001612026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/41/2026
NAGALAND HANDLOOM HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
(NHHDCL)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUDA VILLAGE (HALF
NAGARJAN), DIMAPUR.
VERSUS
SHRI K. HUKUTO SUMI AND 2 ORS
S/O KIVISHE, R/O HOUSE NO. 1015, DIPHUPAR B, CHUMUKEDIMA, NAGALAND. 2:SHRI INAKA K. AYE
S/O KIHOTO AYE
R/O BLOCK -2
THILIXU VILLAGE
CHUMUKEDIMA
3:SHRI. V. TOVIKA SUMI
S/O LATE TOKHEVI SUMI
S/O LATE TOKHEVI SUMI
NAGALAND HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD
KUDA VILLAGE (HALF NAGARJAN)
DIMAPUR
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Imti Imsong, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Medo Vero, Advocate BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Page No.# 2/2
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 : 03.06.2026
(D. Baruah, J)
Heard Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Medo Vero, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were the petitioners in WP(C) No. 263/2023 and WP(C) No. 264/2023.
2. We have duly perused the grounds of delay, as mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the instant application, and are of the opinion that they constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the accompanying Appeal.
3. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 76 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal against the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.263/2023 and WP(C) No. 264/2023.
4. With the above, I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant