Gauhati High Court
Ataur Rahman Choudhury vs The Reliance General Insurance ... on 31 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010009102022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./12/2022
ATAUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY
S/O LATE AB CHOUDHURY
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAMINDPUR, PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND 9 ORS.
G.S RAOD, GUWAHATI 781005, ASSAM
2:ABU TAHER
S/O LATE RASTAM ALI @ RUSTOM ALI
VILLAGE TAMUA
PO SINGARI BAZAR
PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
3:MINA BEGUM
W/O LATE RASTUM ALI @ RUSTOM ALI
VILLAGE TAMUA
PO SINGARI BAZAR
PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
4:MRS. KUTILA BEGUM
W/O LATE SAID UDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROYPUR
NIVIA
PO ALIACHERRA PS RATABARI
DIST KARIMGANJ. ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
5:MISS JILIYA BEGUM
D/O LATE SAID UDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROYPUR
NIVIA
PO ALIACHERRA PS RATABARI
DIST KARIMGANJ. ASSAM
6:HAJI AJIR UDDIN
S/O LATE HAJI AJIR UDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROYPUR
NIVIA
PO ALIACHERRA PS RATABARI
DIST KARIMGANJ. ASSAM
7:MISS SULTANA BEGUM
D/O MD. HAJI AJIR UDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROYPUR
NIVIA
PO ALIACHERRA PS RATABARI
DIST KARIMGANJ. ASSAM
8:ATIQUR RAHMAN
S/O AKLASUR RAHMAN
VILLAGE BADEMOHAKAL
PO MAHAKAL
PS BADARPUR
DIST KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE
9:HAZIRA BEGUM
D/O LATE RASTUM ALI @ RUSTOM ALI
VILLAGE TAMUA
PO SINGARI BAZAR
PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
10:NAZIRA BEGUM
D/O LATE RASTUM ALI @ RUSTOM ALI
VILLAGE TAMUA
PO SINGARI BAZAR
PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ
ASSA
Page No.# 3/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
31.08.2022
Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner
and Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
The learned counsel for the review petitioner, at the outset, submits
that technically the instant application is not a review application but this is
an application under Section 152 of the CPC on account of an inadvertent
error of this Court for not permitting to release of the statutory deposit at
the time of allowing the appeal filed by the appellant/review petitioner.
I have perused the judgment and order dated 13.12.2021 passed in
Mac Appeal No.106/2014; MAC Appeal No.124/2014 and MAC Appeal
No.125/2014.
From a perusal of the said judgment and order it appears that all the
three appeals were allowed thereby exonerating the appellant who is the
review petitioner herein of the liability in respect to the award in question.
However, inadvertently there was no specific directions directing the
return/release of the security deposit so submitted at the time of the filing
of the appeal.
Page No.# 4/4
Taking into account of the said aspect of the matter, this Court,
therefore, directs the Registry to release the security deposit so submitted
in respect to the above mentioned appeals, i.e. Mac Appeal No.106/2014;
MAC Appeal No.124/2014 and MAC Appeal No.125/2014 upon furnishing a
certified copy of the instant order.
Accordingly, the instant review application stands allowed.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
