Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15545 (GAU)

SULEMAN KHAN v. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS.

I.A.(Civil)/2898/2026 · 2026-09-29

Parthivjyoti Saikia

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010146402026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2898/2026 SULEMAN KHAN S/O. MIRJAN KHAN, R/O. VILLAGE- MANERI, P.O.- CHENGA, P.S.- TARABARI, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 6TH FLOOR, ADITYAM BUILDING, LACHIT NAGAR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781007, DISTRICT- KAMRUP M, ASSAM 2:AYMANA KHATUN W/O. ISMAIL KHAN VILLAGE- BANDELI RESERVE P.O.- BAHARI HAT P.S.- TARABARI DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAMPIN- 781302 3:ISMAIL KHAN S/O. MOTALEB KHAN VILLAGE- BANDELI RESERVE P.O.- BAHARI HAT P.S.- TARABARI DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A T SARKAR, S. HUSSAIN,S R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI(R1), MS. P BORTHAKUR(R1),MS. M SAIKIA(R1) Page No.# 2/3 Linked Case : RP(FAM.CT.)/0/0 SULEMAN KHAN S/O MIRJAN KHANR/O VILLAGE- MANERIP.O.- CHENGAP.S.- TARABARIDISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER6TH FLOOR ADITYAM BUILDINGLACHIT NAGAR G.S. ROADGUWAHATI-781007DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM 2:AYMANA KHATUN W/O ISMAIL KHANVILLAGE- BANDELI RESERVEP.O.- BAHARI HATP.S.- TARABARIDISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAMPIN- 781302 3:ISMAIL KHAN S/O MOTALEB KHANVILLAGE- BANDELI RESERVEP.O.- BAHARI HATP.S.- TARABARIDISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAMPIN- 781302 ------------ Advocate for : ABU TALEB SARKAR Advocate for : appearing for HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 30-09-2026 Heard Mr. A T Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 27 days in preferring the connected appeal. Page No.# 3/3 Ms. Borthakur has submitted that she has no objection if the delay is condoned. Further, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The connected appeal shall be registered and listed for admission hearing. The interlocutory application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant