Meghalaya High Court
MC(MACApp)/1/2026 of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs LISTRA NONGRUM AND ANR. on 12 June 2026
No. 03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(MACApp) No. 1 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.06.2026 New India Assurance Co. Ltd, having its Divisional Office Opposite Bawri Mansion, Dhankheti, Shillong-793001 represented by its authorized signatory. ……Petitioner VERSUS 1.
Serial No. 03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC(MACApp) No. 1 of 2026
Date of Decision: 12.06.2026
New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
having its Divisional Office Opposite Bawri Mansion, Dhankheti, Shillong-793001
represented by its authorized signatory.
……Petitioner
VERSUS
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.
1. Smt. Listra Nongrum, R/o. Police Reserve, P.S. Sadar Police Station, Shillong, Meghalaya
2. Shri. Pankaj Banerjee, Swapan Bhawan, Kalapahar, Guwahati, Assam. (Owner of Vehicle No. AS01 BC 0522)
……Opposite Parties
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. A. Nongbri, Adv. vice
Mr. S. Jindal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)
: Ms. A. Rani, Adv. vice
Mr. K.C. Gautam, Adv. (For R 1)
i) Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication
in press:
Yes/No
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Ms. A. Rani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 who has submitted that there is no objection to the prayer made in this application seeking condonation of delay of 264 days in filing the related appeal.
2. Ms. A. Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the notice upon the respondent No. 2/owner has since been affected and an affidavit-of-service has been filed in this regard. However, till date the said respondent has failed to make his appearance before this Court. It is prayed that necessary order may be passed to proceed ex-parte against such respondent.
3. This Court, in the first instance, on consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned that since such respondent has failed to respond to the notice and to make his appearance before the Court, therefore an ex-parte order be passed against him, after due deliberation, is convinced that the matter shall proceed ex-parte against him.
4. Secondly, since there is no effective opposition to the prayer made for condonation of delay, on perusal of the petition and the grounds cited therein, indicating the reasons for delay in filing the related appeal, this
Court is convinced that the same are acceptable as far as this matter is concerned.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 264 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
6. Petition disposed of.
7. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list the same for admission after 1(one) week. Judge Meghalaya 12.06.2026 “Tiprilynti–PS” 2026:MLHC:578 Digitally signed by TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR Date: 2026.06.12 18:13:21 IST Signature Not Verified