HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NIJU SAIKIA
I.A.(Civil)/3501/2025 · 2026-08-27
Parthivjyoti Saikia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3861 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3861 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010223522025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3501/2025 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT FIRST FLOOR, HDFC HOUSE,165-166 BACKDAY RECLAMATION, H.T.PAREKH MARG, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400020, MAHARASHTRA, ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT FOURTH FLOOR,BLOCK OFFICE AT FOURT FLOOR, BLOCK-C, 22 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-700016 AND THE BRANCH OFFICE IS AT ADITYAM TOWER, 6TH FLOOR, ULUBARI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM IS REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, LITIGATION DEPARTMENT AND T.P CLAIMS VERSUS NIJU SAIKIA WIFE OF SRI DEBESWAR SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE- BORDUP, POST OFFICE- DUBIA, POLICE STATION- GOHPUR, DISTRICT- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN CODE-784178 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P BORDOLOI, Linked Case : RP(FAM.CT.)/0/0 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT FIRST FLOOR HDFC HOUSE
Page No.# 2/3 165-166 BACKDAY RECLAMATION H.T. PAREKH MARG CHURCHGATE MUMBAI400020 MAHARASHTRA ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT FOURTH FLOOR BLOCK-C 22 CAMAC STREET KOLKATA 700016 VERSUS SMT NIJU SAIKIA WIFE OF SRI DEBESWAR SAIKIA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE- BORDUP POST OFFICE- DUBIA POLICE STATION- GOHPUR DISTRICT- BISWANATH ASSAM PIN CODE784178 ------------ Advocate for : Tridib Kalita Advocate for : appearing for SMT NIJU SAIKIA
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. T Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M Alam, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 9 days of delay in filing the MAC Appeal.
3. Mr. Alam has fairly submitted that he has no objection if the delay is condoned.
4. I have perused the application and found that the delay has been satisfactorily
Page No.# 3/3 explained.
5. Therefore, the delay stands condoned.
6. The connected MAC Appeal shall be registered and listed for admission hearing next week.
7. The IA stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant