Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11157 (GAU)

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. v. DEBARUN BHATTACHARJEE

I.A.(Civil)/2407/2026 · 2026-07-26

Kalyan Rai Surana, Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010148172026 2026:GAU- AS:10231-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2407/2026 BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT LOKMANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE- 411005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2: BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE REPRESENTED BY MR. AKKABATHULA SANDEEP AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O AKKABATHULA JACOB CHIEF MANAGER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS DEBARUN BHATTACHARJEE S/O SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE, R/O AJC BOSE LANE, MEHERPUR, HOUSE NO. 22, SILCHAR, ASSAM-788015 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KHANIKAR, R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A DHANUKA, FOR CAVEATOR,MR. A GANGULY Linked Case : CRP/0/0 Page No.# 2/3 BANK OF MAHARASHTRA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT LOKMANGAL 1501 SHIVAJINAGAR PUNE-411005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2: MR AKKABATHULA SANDEEP S/O AKKABATHULA JACOB CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM. VERSUS DEBARUN BHATTACHARJEE S/O SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE R/O AJC BOSE LANE MEHERPUR HOUSE NO. 22 SILCHAR ASSAM-788015 ------------ Advocate for : RAJIB LUSHAN CHUTIA Advocate for : appearing for DEBARUN BHATTACHARJEE Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 27.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A. Dhanuka, learned counsel for the respondent. By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant is prayed for condoning the delay of 2 (two) days beyond the period of limitation by filing the connected appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer. Nonetheless, having regard to the nature of explanation tendered, the same is accepted as sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from filing the connected appeal on time. Accordingly, the delay of 2(two) days in the present connected appeal stands condoned. The Registry shall now register the connected appeal and list the same in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant