Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7982 (GAU)

M/S ATM CARGO MOVERS (R) v. M/S BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS (HUF)

I.A.(Civil)/692/2024 · 2025-05-25

Parthivjyoti Saikia

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010016532024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Civil)/692/2024 M/S ATM CARGO MOVERS (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI RAJESH TRIPATHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 620 VISHAL TOWER DISTRICT CENTRE JANAK PURI NEW DELHI- 110058 AND OFFICE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY INCLUDING ONE SUCH BRANCH OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 24 2ND FLOOR P.P. ROAD REHABARI P.O.- GUWAHATI- 781008 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS M/S BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS (HUF) REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA SRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL SON OF LATE MOHANLAL AGARWAL HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SECOND FLOOR P.R. COMPLEX A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K D CHETRI Advocate for : MR. O P BHATI appearing for M/S BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL AND Page No.# 2/2 SONS (HUF) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 26.05.2025 Heard Mr. K. D. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring the connected review petition. It has been submitted by Mr. Chetri that because of financial hardship, the applicant could not file the review petition on time. Mr. Bhati, on the other hand, has objected the submission of Mr. Chetri for delayed filing of the review petition by submitting that only Rs.30/- is required as court fee for filing the review petition. Regarding term of ‘Sufficient Cause’, Mr. Bhati has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was rendered in the case of Basawaraj and Others v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. At this stage, this court is of the opinion that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the connected review petition shall be registered and listed for admission hearing. The IA(C) stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant