Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15439 (GAU)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. GANESH NATH AND ORS

I.A.(Civil)/885/2026 · 2026-09-29

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010066932023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/885/2026 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD FORT MUMBAI 400001 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GS ROAD GUWAHATI 5 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER VERSUS GANESH NATH AND ORS SON OF SRI BIREN NATH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND REP. 1.1:SMTI RAJU NATH MOTHER OF LATE GANESH NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIJULI NATHPARA PS CHAYGAON DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 1.2:SRI RUBUL NATH BROTHER OF LATE GANESH NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIJULI NATHPARA PS CHAYGAON DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 1.3:SRI KANAK NATH BROTHER OF LATE GANESH NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIJULI NATHPARA PS CHAYGAON DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 1.4:SRI JUGAL NATH BROTHER OF LATE GANESH NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIJULI NATHPARA PS CHAYGAON DISTRICT Page No.# 2/3 KAMRUP ASSAM 1.5:SRI LILA NATH SISTER OF LATE GANESH NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIJULI NATHPARA PS CHAYGAON DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 1.6:ALAKA NATH SISTER OF LATE GANESH NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIJULI NATHPARA PS CHAYGAON DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 2:AMIR KR JHA SON OF LATE SHIBNANDAN JHA RESIDENT OF NABIN NAGAR BASISTHA ROAD H NO 17 BELTOLA GUWAHATI 29 3:SRI CHITRA DAS SON OF LATE HARESWAR DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR PS PALASHBARI KAMRUP ------------ Advocate for : MR SISHIR DUTTA Advocate for : appearing for GANESH NATH AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 30.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 367 days of delay in preferring the substitution petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has no objection if the delay is condoned. Page No.# 3/3 4. Accordingly, the delay stands condoned. 5. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant