Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Vinay Kumar Pathak vs The General Manager on 12 November, 2021

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010097122019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2320/2019

            VINAY KUMAR PATHAK
            S/O- VIDYANANDA PATHAK, SWAPPNA BHAWAN, H/NO. 230, KALAPAHAR,
            GUWAHATI-16, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-01/DC-
            6680 (SC BUS).



            VERSUS

            THE GENERAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND
            4 ORS
            E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN- 302022,
            VALID UPTO- 23-03-2013, INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01/DC-6680
            (SC BUS).

            2:PURNIMA CHETRI
            W/O- SRI KRISHNA CHETRI

            3:KRISHNA CHETRI
             S/O- LATE CHAKRA CHETRI

            4:TULSHA DEVI
             D/O- SRI KRISHNA CHETRI

            5:MANDIRA DEVI
             D/O- SRI KRISHNA CHETRI
            ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL.- HABIGAON
             P.S. ORANG
             DIST.- UDALGURI (BTAD)
            ASSAM
             PIN- 784114

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S B CHOUDHURY
                                                                          Page No.# 2/2

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                        ORDER

Date : 12-11-2021 Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.

The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of 115 days delay in preferring the connected appeal.

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has fairly submits that he would have no objection if the delay is condoned.

On the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the delay of 115 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list the matter for admission.

I.A. stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant