Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/44/2026 of THE GENERAL MANAGER (R), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND) AND ANR Vs M/S B.K. ENTERPRISES on 21 April 2026
GAHC020001702026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/44/2026 THE GENERAL MANAGER (R), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND) AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACT), REGIONAL
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC020001702026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/44/2026
THE GENERAL MANAGER (R), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND) AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACT), REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND), H/NO. 105, BANK COLONY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND - 797112
2: THE AREA MANAGER
FCI
DO
DIMAPUR/IMPHAL
REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND)
H/NO. 105
BANK COLONY
DIMAPUR
NAGALAND - 79711
VERSUS
M/S B.K. ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI GURUMAYUM
BIMALKUMAR SHARMA, S/O (L)G. GOURACHANDRA SHARMA, R/O SOIBAM
LEIKAI,
OLD CHECKON BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL AND P.S. POROMPAT, IMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR - 795001
Advocate for the Petitioner : TAKA MASA, SR. ADV, Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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 : 22-04-2026 (Y. Longkumer, J) The present application under section 5 of the Limi- tation Act 1963 has been preferred by the applicant praying for condonation of delay of 72 days in preferring the connected writ appeal WA 11/2026. Heard the learned Sr. counsel for the applicant Mr. Taka Masa. The reasons for the delay has been set out in para- graphs 3 and 4 of the application. We have perused the same and find that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for the delay of 72 days in filing the writ appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. M. Solo has also not raised any objection regarding the delay. In the result, we are of the view that the applicant has been able to explain the reasons for the delay of 72 days and therefore the same is condoned and the application is al- lowed.
Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant