Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14821 (GAU)

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SMTI TIKA TANTI AND 4 ORS

I.A.(Civil)/2368/2025 · 2026-09-17

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010072182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2368/2025 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZA, OPPOSITE OF S.B. DEORAH COLLEGE, 4TH FLOOR, BORA SERVICE, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. (REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, CLAIMS LEGAL, MR. KAIFI ANAM) VERSUS SMTI TIKA TANTI AND 4 ORS W/O LATE RATAN RAY 2:SMTI MONI RAY W/O SRI AJIT RAY 3:MISS SUMITA RAY D/O LATE RATAN RAY 4:MISS NEHA RAY D/O LATE RATAN RAY ALL ARE R/O NO. 1 PITHA GHAT P.O. AND P.S. URIAMGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM (THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 4 BEING MINOR ARE REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 2) 5:DIPAK KR. DAS S/O MANURANJAN DAS C/O DWIJEN CH. KUMAR Page No.# 2/3 R/O HOUSING COMPLEX SOCIETY HOUSE NO. 300E KAMAKHYA NAGAR ADABARI PANDU GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN 78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BHATTACHARYYA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR G BHARADWAJ (R-1 TO 4), Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. A Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 163 days in preferring the connected appeal. It may be mentioned that the notice upon the respondent no. 5 is yet to be served. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Mr. Deuri has submitted that he has no objection if the delay is condoned. On the other hand, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. This court is of the opinion that going for issuing notice on the respondent no. 5 would be waste of time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. Registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same. The interlocutory application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant