I.A.(Civil) 82/2016. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | I.A.(Civil) 82/2016 |
| Judgement Date | February 17, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( HI GH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
I .A. ( Civil) 82/ 2016
I n MAC APP SL. NO. 272049,
I .A. ( C) __/ 2016, CAVT. 410/ 2016
Cholamandalam MS General I nsurance Company Limited
- Appellant
- Versus –
1. Smti. Kalpana Kumari Deka,
2. Miss Dixita Deka,
3. Master R. K. Seemran Deka,
4. Smti. Kamala Deka,
5. Smti. Jaya Das,
6. Sri Kamal Deka
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
For the applicant : Mr. R. Goswami.
For the respondents : Mr. K. Gogoi.
Date of hearing & judgment : 17.02.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( ORAL)
- Respondents
I .A.( Civil) 82/ 2016
I n MAC APP SL.NO. 272049,
I .A.( C) __/ 2016, CAVT. 410/ 2016
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA 17.02.2017
Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
The learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondent No. 5 is the owner of the vehicle and in the present case, he is not a necessary party and prays to strike out the name of the respondent No.
5.
The said prayer is allowed at the risk of the applicant.
None appears for the respondent No. 6 although service on the said respondent is completed.
By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 92 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected appeal.
The delay is explained in paragraph 2 of the application, wherein it has been stated that the official formalities of taking the opinion and getting approval from various office including the head office of the applicant at Chennai took some time and in the process, the delay of 92 days beyond the period of limitation has occurred in filing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, by filing affidavitin-opposition on 01.11.2016, has vehemently objected the prayer of the applicant. I t has been stated that the impugned judgment and award was passed in the presence of the parties and therefore, the plea that some time was presumed to file the appeal has not been explained.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has referred to the following cases:-(i) Manjit Singh Legal Heirs of Sena Singh and Anr. –vs- G. M. Assam state Road Transport Corporation and Ors 2003 (3) GLT 443.
(ii) State of Mizoram and Anr. –vs- V. S. Pillai and Anr 2005
(4) GLT 188.
(iii) Union of India (Railways) –vs- Manipur Tea Trading
Company 2008 (4) GLT 897.
(iv) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay –vs- Amateur Rides
Club, Bombay (1994) Supp (2) SCC 603.
(v) Basawaraj and another –vs- Special Land Acquisition
Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81.
By referring to the same, it is submitted that in the present case in hand, the explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condoning the delay. He submits that in the case of Commissioner of Sale Tax (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the application for condoning the delay by stating that the affidavit is a stereotype affidavit and that the revenue is seem to attach any importance to the need of...
To continue reading
Request your trial