Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23121 (GAU)

MR. RUOKUONEILIE KESIEZIE v. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AND 2 ORS

I.A.(Civil)/44/2025 · 2025-06-04

Yarenjungla Longkumer

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020001592025 2025:GAU-NL:240 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/44/2025 MR. RUOKUONEILIE KESIEZIE S/O LATE KEDUOSIEVI KESIEZIE, R/O A30, L-KHEL,KOHIMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AND 2 ORS REGISTERED OFFICE- GATEWAY CUILDING, APOLLO BUNDER, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 2:MR. S. SANTHANAMAN COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE ZONAL HEAD EAST CUSTOMER CARE MAHINDRTA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR-7 KYD STREET 3RD FLOOR KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 3:MR. ARINDAMROY CHOWDHURY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE REGIONAL HEAD GUWAHATI MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : A. ZHIMOMI, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : FA/2/2025 MR. RUOKUONEILIE KESIEZIE S/O LATE KEDUOSIEVI KESIEZIE Page No.# 2/4 R/O A30 L-KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AND 2 ORS REGISTERED OFFICE- GATEWAY CUILDING APOLLO BUNDER MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA 2:MR. S. SANTHANAMAN COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE ZONAL HEAD EAST CUSTOMER CARE MAHINDRTA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR-7 KYD STREET 3RD FLOOR KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 3:MR. ARINDAMROY CHOWDHURY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE REGIONAL HEAD GUWAHATI MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR. ------------ Advocate for : A. ZHIMOMI Advocate for : AKHRIEU CHUSI appearing for MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AND 2 ORS Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/45/2025 MR. RUOKUONEILIE KESIEZIE S/O LATE KEDUOSIEVI KESIEZIE R/O A30 L-KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AND 2 ORS Page No.# 3/4 REGISTERED OFFICE- GATEWAY CUILDING APOLLO BUNDER MUMBAI MAHARASHTR 2:MR. S. SANTHANAMAN COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE ZONAL HEAD EAST CUSTOMER CARE MAHINDRTA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR-7 KYD STREET 3RD FLOOR KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 3:MR. ARINDAMROY CHOWDHURY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE REGIONAL HEAD GUWAHATI MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR. ------------ Advocate for : A. ZHIMOMI Advocate for : appearing for MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. AND 2 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 05.06.2025 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 33 (thirty-three) days in filing the connected First Appeal 2/2025. The reasons for the delay have been given in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the interlocutory application. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. A. Zhimomi. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Akhrieu Chusi Page No.# 4/4 is present and has filed objections to the interlocutory application and has stated that the applicant ought to have immediately taken steps to initiate the process of filing appeal, instead the applicant has admitted that after pronouncement of the judgment they approached their counsel in the first week of December and from then on till the third week of June no action has been taken by them purportedly due to the winter vacations. It is also stated that the applicant has not tendered any explanation as to the delay that took place after the decision to file his appeal, i.e. on 31.01.2025 since at this stage they were still within the timeline and had 25 (twenty- five) days remaining to take the necessary steps. It is further submitted that the applicant has not established any sufficient cause which prevented them from filing the appeal within the above mentioned timeline. It is also stated that the applicant has not given a day-to-day breakdown of the 33 days delay and has failed to account for the day-to- day delay. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application may be dismissed as no sufficient cause has been shown. 3. This Court has perused the application and the reasons stated thereon regarding the delay, and it is found that sufficient cause has been shown for the same. Accordingly, the delay of 33 (thirty-three) days is condoned. 4. The instant interlocutory application is allowed and disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant